Lasica, J. (2003) Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other

Lasica has a high opinion of blogging and it’s working. Blogging complements traditional forms of journalism and it will play a role in the future development of news. But isn’t that only true for a very small percentage of the news providing sources?

First of all there are people who don’t have an Internet connection or who don’t know blogs exist. For instance, I never heard of blogs before I had to make one for this course. The spelling and grammar check of my Microsoft Word program didn’t hear of it either.

Another reason is that news can be a form of entertainment. Relaxing in front of your computer is commonly a bit harder than watching television or reading a newspaper. And when listening to the radio, you can do other things as well. Now blogging can be a form of entertainment as well, but due to the involvement blogs require, they don’t provide the comfort and ease the TV, newspaper or radio do.

When blogs are being used, there has to be a reason. You would really like the writer, no matter what subject he or she touches or you are really interested in the subject. Bottom line, you won’t start searching the Internet unless you have a reason for it.

Then there are the people who don’t always approve of the information blogs provide. Although a lot of useful and insider information can be extracted from blogs, there still is a big chance that people subconsciously keep thinking of amateurs writing. They don’t have the image and reputation (yet) that journalists have form the traditional way of newsgathering.

To summarize, blogs are a good process in collecting information and providing a broad and comprehensive view about the subject but the Lasica gives, in my opinion, too much credit to the usage and impact of it.

Gillmor, D. (2003) Moving Toward Participatory Journalism

Gillmor suggests that blogging is about the engagement op participants through blogging. But is that a defensible development? When everyone is able to put up a blog and when we assume Gillmor’s point that blogs can influence, isn’t this a process that thins the line between privacy and public?

People can put everything on blogs; data, information, lies, trueness, games and so on. Some people nowadays see the media as annoying and not as a trusty information provider. Moral values disappear and just the hype is the interesting part. When using the Internet, it often seems like the virtual worlds, where participants spend their time, look like villages. People know each other and interact with each other. When blogging, people can put all sorts of stuff on the net and with the connectiveness, people can be intertwined. Unwanted data can be put on the web easily, and even spread more easily. These are not files that can be distributed through P2P; these are stories put on websites. It then looks like a gossip foundation, everyone can add to the stories, making it worse. So maybe rules can and should be needed. Gillmore says that’s a worst-case scenario. I know there’s a freedom of speech and I think that shouldn’t be restricted, but there are data that shouldn’t be shown on the Internet. Not that I think people always would behave this bad, but as good as Gilmore thinks blogging can be, like I’ve said, I don’t think is realistic. If the privacy of people gets too much exposed, than blogging isn’t a good process and it might need regulations.

Middelaar, L. van (2003) On logos and grassroots: the anti-globalisation movement between morals, economics and politics

Will globalisation, like Fukuyama sees it, ever be realized?

In this article the American political scientist, Fransis Fukuyama, is mentioned. He thinks that history only has one direction; capitalist democracy. Globalisation can be understood as achieving this goal; capitalist democracy around the world. In this way all frontiers would disappear. So it wouldn’t make a difference if your car is American made or German made; they are both produces in one ‘country’; earth. It really sounds like a romantic future.

Moneymaking goes beyond all ethnic, political, and country boundaries. (This is how black people got their own movies; it’s just another target-group to get some money from.) So a lot of big manufacturers cross these boundaries, and become active in a lot of countries, just to make money. The anti-globalisation movement shows that some people don’t like these developments. A lot of countries have laws to protect their own manufacturers from those of other countries, who can make the same things, but cheaper. So I think a lot of people are afraid of these things, and want to protect themselves. And, let’s face it; you probably want your neighbours to be financial healthy, more then someone you will never see. So I think globalisation, as Fukuyama sees it, will never be realized.

Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy. pp. 185-200

In this article the author concludes that economy and culture shouldn’t be separated because they are connected to each other. Culture defines economy and visa versa. Hence consumers get aestheticzed and stylized; they are being triggered by new considerations when purchasing items. But isn’t that a bit obvious?

Where does economy come from? It’s a culturally defined setting, not all cultures have had an economy in the sense we speak about it. Economy comes from culture, not the other way around. Economy is a subgroup, an underlying level of culture which can be examined as a lose part of society, but it’s not an independent level. Economy must be placed in the context of culture.

Apparently something went wrong with H20, so here is my critique part:

I’m afraid I don’t fully agree with everything you’ve said in answering the H20 question.

Firstly, you say:

“All the fuss is about the file-sharing programs like KaZaA and Napster, because the record companies claim the decrease in record-sales on these programs. But they haven’t thought about the possible positive effects of P2P-networks.”

That’s only partly right. You assume they haven’t though about the positive effects, but how can you say that for sure? I think they did think about positive effects, but the problems are like you’ve said, all the fuss is about the decrease on record-sales. They just put the focus on that matter, probably knowing there are positive side effects as well, but leaving them out to remain focus on that part for economical reasons.

Secondly you say that:

 “So instead of forbidding the use of P2P-networks, we should start our own, or co-operate with the existing ones, to show the users that we are not afraid of these new structures and that we consider these to be the future of distribution.”

Who do ‘we’ need to tell ‘we’ are not afraid? I agree that the future of software distribution can be through P2P-networks, but I don’t see why ‘we’ should prove that we’re not afraid. I think it’s the other way around. I’ve ‘we’ want to use P2P-networks for distributional matters, ‘we’ should convince the software producers and distributors that they should not be afraid of using P2P-networks. It saves money in a various form of aspects. From shipping costs to productions costs, money can be saved.

My last statement will be about the following:

”In this way, we can come up with a good, bug free program, which allows people to register to our services so they can share files for free, while we promote our new products for free.”

Shirky, C. (2000) What is P2P… And What Isn’t

Shirky says that the “peeriness” of P2P looks to be more like a label than a definition. What’s the difference in this case?

When you label something, you define it and put in the righteous category. When you define something, you tell what it is and try to put in the right place as well. I don’t see why Shirky points out that the P2P can better be seen as a label than a definition. In this case, a lot of definitions are given to P2P networks and it’s utilities. But people label it in their own way, so I don’t understand why there should be a discussion about it if it has no given name in the first place. Labelling or defining P2P makes no difference in the way it is used or called by the people themselves.

Rutherford, E. (2000) The P2P Report

I think the positive arguments and examples Rutherford uses to illustrate the use of P2P aren’t so convincing. Actually it doesn’t sound positive at all. Is a P2P network an improvement at the working space, or not?

I guess not. Rutherford says that file-swapping programs tend to slow down the network when used too much. The positive arguments Rutgherford gives are when you are working in the same place as other employees with a P2P connection, you can contact each other very easily. Also when people want help with finding the right information, like the given example. Now these arguments and examples aren’t very convincing. When you can’t find someone you can always call or just send a message, there is no real reason for using such a network. You can also have a server where all the important data is copied to. When you want something out of that basket you simple log in onto that computer and retrieve what you want. In that case only one computer gets taxed, the other remain fully functional.

Wellman, B. & Boase, J. (2001) A plague of viruses; Biological, Computer and Marketing.

Boase and Wellman describe three viruses in their article A plague of Viruses: biological, computer and marketing. All three kinds have one thing in common; they al use a network to spread. Why do marketers use networks to advert their products?

Boase and Wellman say that there are two kinds of networks. The first is the densely knit network; a network of people who all know each other, and frequently see each other, like a group of friends. The second is the ramified network; a network that contains a larger group, not everybody knows each other directly, and they don’t see each other frequently, like people at their work. Actually the real world is a mix of the two kinds of networks, and this is called a glocalized network.

Though biological viruses, like HIV, and computer viruses, like the ‘I love u’ virus, use these kinds of networks to destroy, marketers use networks in their advance; to advert their product. An ordinary commercial at the television can pass me by without me noticing it. But if my best friend tells me about a certain product, I’m sure I will listen. So viral marketing is used, because the attention of the costumer is much higher. Free sms servers use this concept. The servers have websites on which you can send a free text message to a friend. But you will have a commercialized line attached to the message. So the receiver will get a message like; ‘I will see you around 8. Have a break have a kitkat.’ This can be more effective than a big billboard.

Another reason why viral marketing is so effective is that you trust your friends more than some guy on the television. If a friend tells me his Nike’s are really comfortable, I believe him and might go to the shop to fit them myself. If an ad tells me they are comfy, I know this could just be some marketing trick, and he only says it because he can get some clothes for free.

Benkler, Y. (2000) From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access

In this article, it troubles Benkler that the Internet will become just another form of mass media. But would that be true?

I think not. Throughout the years I’ve had some Internet experience and I witnessed a few changes. One of them, for instance, is that a lot of sites look nicer, more professional, with flashy images, sounds and so on and not all of these sites are commercial ones. There is also see a change with the commercial sites. I never had Spam e-mails until a few years ago, and now when you find a nice site, you have to click your way through the pop-ups to see what the site looks like. Although sites get more and more commercialised, there come other programs that can aid you, for instance the ‘pop-up killer’ that eliminates the pop-up sites.

Another thing that did change are the sites where I can find mp3’s. Although there are a lot of federal boundaries, I have to say that it has never been so easy to download a whole album as nowadays. The same counts for games and other programs. These are just sites, not programs like Kazaa, DC++ and Overnet, who, of course, can provide you too with the latest programs and other parts of information.

In other words, although the Internet gets more and more controlled, people will be able to find ways surrounding the legislations and other federal boundaries. Creativity will be kept and Benkler’s fear of loss of expressive freedom is not sustained. Internet won’t be mass medium in the sense that it would just provide entertainment for a big passive crowd. Internet is much more individualistic and there are almost no limitations in finding what you’d like, so it wouldn’t be like the traditional media regulation, which provide you with choices. You can choose yourself and if there are new boundaries, creativity provides a helping hand.

Leddig, L. (2001) Innovation from the Internet

Leddig writes that television channels channel consumers. Although more and more choices came because more channels came, when you compare it with Napster, like Leddig says: “Napster represents the extreme in this trend. Channels no longer channel consumers.”

Later on in the article, Leddig talks about information that www.amazon.com provides. This information isn’t seen as commercial, but as useful information created by other consumers who bought the same product as you and want you to get acquainted with other commodity they liked too. Isn’t this a form of channelling too?

Commercial companies do not create the information provided on this site. But the information from your fellow consumers does create a taste. When you liked a commodity and you liked a recommended commodity too, you might end up following paths, guidelines others made for you. So you are being channelled without commercial intend. Not only this, but couldn’t commercial acts interfere here as well?

Lets say the sites’ guidelines are not secretly sponsored or anything; they are real and created by real consumers. But couldn’t a company buy it’s own product and so act to interfere on the guidelines? If it is true that people buy what is recommended, can’t a company buy lot of it’s own commodity just to get recognised? In that way you can attach your product to something very popular and parasite on their success. In that way, commercial sites can channel your choices without even knowing it.

Harries, D. (2002) Watching the Internet

Although Harries issues correctly that new innovations will try to bring ‘connectedness’ of Internet, the ‘live-ness’ of film and the ‘realness’ of cinema together, would they become ‘new’ or not? Wouldn’t they just become enhanced types of their former concept and still be separated features?

Although degrees of interactivity do climb, it still wouldn’t be even half way interactive. Now I know, full interactivity cannot be created due to narrative limitations. But while surfing on the Internet and participating in a few features the sites have to offer, whatever the features might be you’d still be sitting in front of you’re computer watching your 15” screen and if you’re lucky, 17” screen. Fact is, Internet sites develop more and more features to attract visitors or clientele, but it would still be you sitting in front of your machine. Now there is a big chance that television will become a larger part of the Internet. You see it now already, missed episodes can be downloaded. But on the other hand, you still want to see it as comfortable as can be. The television is a better provider of relaxation and conforms than the computer. Not necessarily the size of the screen, but the whole setting is different. Televisions usually are in front of a couch and not placed on a desk. I know this is not a perquisite or a rule, it’s just a then way in witch we use the computers or televisions. And this separation is clearly seen and emphasized on computers nowadays; they all come with video outputs so you can watch whatever you like on the television.

With the cinema, important elements are that you go with other people; it’s time you spend together. It’s a place to meet and see people. Not only this, but the size of the screen, that intimidating part, is an important factor of cinema too. Although computers can provide you with the looks of a cinema, it doesn’t replace the real thing, how nice the connectedness might be. So yes, media elements do come together on the Internet but the usages will remain separated.

Gay, P. du & Pryke, M (2002) Cultural Economy

This chapter issues cultural problems in the music industry and states who pulls the strings and controls the music industry. It says that record companies see artists as investments. They only sign artists that fulfil certain prejudgements so the artists can be used to their likings, which is maximum profits for the record companies. Hyping and promoting artists plays a big roll; how can we get the artist on the radio and television as much as possible. Marketing strategies peep around the corner and when you look at the music industry through this perspective you could say that the gentlemen from the music industry are creating the taste for the people and thus play a part in culturalizing. But isn’t that changing, especially due to the big library Internet can be?

I myself never listen to the radio and I only flip through music stations on TV when I don’t want to see the commercials on other channels. Bottomline, the music from the big companies don’t get to me anymore. I now it’s hard to fully ignore it, but I have found my music through Internet and I can see where my favourite artistes are performing just by clicking on www.partyflock.com. I hardly listen to the music that is now in the top of the pops, I only go to certain parties where my favourite music is played.

Another positive affect of getting acquainted with music you like through the World Wide Web is that you can determine what music you look best because the choice is way bigger. This results in my case is that I am buying music again, music you can’t hear on the radio or can’t see on the television.

If I didn’t have Internet I might still be listening to popular music and be a part of their culture, but not anymore thanks to the choice making abilities Internet provides.

Week 3:

Dodge, M. & Kitchin, R. (2001) Geographies of the Information Society.

Question: If cyberspace has no boundaries, how can it be examined?

In cyberspace it seems there aren’t any boundaries. The possibilities seem unlimited and though there may be some constrictions, there are several ways to bypass them. Cyberspace it seems is nothing, but due to our social and cultural backgrounds we provide the empty space with out imagination and start shaping and designing. That means that cyberspace is virtually nothing, but can be everything we want it to be. How do we intend to investigate and examine a virtual space that is basically nothing or everything? Writing down every possibility one can come up with? Looking even further, if there would be people growing up in a virtual world, and thus having a virtual sociological and cultural background, how would one shape their world? Not only that, but when they create a virtual world in their virtual world, there is another endless world within the endless world that has to be examined. This will start an unoverviewable chain reaction, which can be let to no exclusive end. If everything is nothing and nothing is everything, then we can only examine ‘a little’ and that’s the problem, there is no little cyberspace.

Hutchby, I. (2001) The communicative affordances of technological artefacts.

Question: Would different cultures yet have similar determinism discussions?