Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Lions and tigers and bears!Oh My!
Video found here
According to Bruns (2008), open source translates to the principles of produsage and can be applied to citizen journalism, for they are all based on wide scale participation, enabled by websites and other forms of community organisation tools.
So what is open source? One definition is that “Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in” (Open source initiative, 2007).
In comparison, Bruns (2008) provides the example of closed source as industrial and traditional models such as Windows Office whereby the core intellectual property is protected and highly confidential with only a select group of developers allowed to work on the project. This is because if anyone gained access, they could slightly reprogram and rebrand the software and provide access to the masses. Goodbye Microsoft business model.
Microsoft business model:
Small group of developers -> goods produced->distributed to consumers->consumers purchase goods->$$
Open source on the other hand, is as Bruns (2008) explains, programs such as Linux, firefox and open office, which are alternatives and compete with “traditional” programs of a closed source nature. Basically, with open source software for example, anyone can further develop a program, meaning there is never a “finished product” but instead, continual enhancements and quality improvements.
Available freely (not for commercial sale) ->anyone can download, edit and further develop
So, open source is common property,for “anyone can see it, anyone can use it, anyone can edit as well” (Bruns, 2008 podcast). How does this tie in with citizen journalism? Because anyone can read citizen journalism articles, anyone can be a citizen journalist, and the editing process can, depending on the site used, require editing by a “coordinator” or be entirely driven by community evaluation.
Traditional news media operates in a closed way, a select group of editors, journalists and company owners determine what is “news” and what information will be accessible to readers. So like with closed software production, only a few are privy to what is going on “behind the scenes” of traditional news production.
Citizen journalism operates in a more open system, anyone with access to the internet can publish stories or deending on the website, comment on the work of others. Editors such as those from OhmyNews (a hub for citizen journalism) may edit the stories to ensure the quality of writing is high enough or alternatively, stories are instead evaluated through the feedbank of readers for example.
Like open source, produsage efforts such as citizen journalism involve open participation, communal evaluation of contributions, fluid heterarchy, allow “leaders” to emerge depending on topics and knowledge levels, and “rankings” based on merit and quality of contributions (Bruns, 2008b).
Open source operates in a heterarchical and meritocratic system. Contributors and contributions are ranked by the value and merit of their contributions. Should they continually contribute quality submissions, they may then become an esteemed member of the community (Bruns, 2008 podcast). Furthermore, Bauwers asserts that the motivation for participation in open source projects is generally not motivate by money, but for the increase in use value and one’s personal learning, development and reputation (as cited in Bruns, 2008). Oh My News arguably operates in a similar manner, though articles are ranked by editors authors may receive a small payment (as in 20 odd dollars). This amount is insubstantial and most contributors do not write stories chiefly for monetary gain, for if one was interested in making money, they would probably do so through a different avenue. OhmyNews citizen journalists can also earn money through a “tipping jar” system. Readers of articles can also indicate the value of the article by donating money to the authors through the website. One writer however, Kim Young-oak, a Harvard-trained classics scholar, received more than $30,000 from one article that was rejected for publication by mainstream media (Lee, 2007). This large amount donated by readers indicates the high level of interest and quality of the article.
Elliot (as cited in Bruns, 2008) points out that when specific members of a community assume a gatekeeper role, this can restrict free flowing contributions. This is evident with traditional news that goes through the gate-keeping process, and as a result certain views are privileged and certain topics covered depending on the choice of journalists and editors. While editors at Oh My News for example could be seen to be “leaders”, “coordinators”, or “gatekeepers”, they do not restrict stories due to the “importance” of the topic in their own eyes, but are more concerned with content quality control. Coordinators of open source and produsage processes, according to Bruns (2008) exert influence to guide processes in beneficial in the overall development of projects. This can be said for the editors at OhmyNews who oversee and edit articles to maintain quality rather than to privilege certain views. OhmyNews, stories that are not formally adopted by the site’s editors are not classified as “articles” and are placed in a separate section from the “approved” articles, so that readers are aware that while the stories are accessible, there may be inaccuracies in the pieces. The CEO (Oh Yeon-ho)of OhmyNews has compiled 10 preconditions for User Generated Content, and presented these at a UNESCO conference last year. These elements which focused of credibility, responsibility, influence and sustainability provide a good foundation as to the basic essentials required to provide value and credibility. While these ideas which are not new, they are still valuable concepts for use in the present and future.
I guess one could say that open source and citizen journalism represent a decentralization of power and control of traditional business models.. Now that online, people can create content, continually enhance, change and comment on content why should they just be satisfied to read stories written by one or two journalists, edited by one or a small group of people and sent straight to the printers? With closed source software, only developers really get to “see” what’s going on. Arguably it is the same with traditional print media, sure editors read over work and “fix” parts, but how can they be really sure about the accuracy of the stories they edit if they were not at the scene, or interview themselves and are editing work depending on their perspective. Newspaper readers and news consumers can only assume what they are reading/listening to/watching is correct and true, they don’t really know what goes on “behind the scenes”. Traditionalists may point out that the continual enhancement and updating of news stories, ability for communities to evaluate work and the “open” nature of citizen journalism fails to provide quality and consistency.As Bruns (2008) points out,however, there is as much irresponsible blogging as poor journalism and the standard people would like blogs to be are standards that most industrial journalists can’t even reach.
Bruns, A. (2008). Open source software [Podast:KCB201 virtual cultures]. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology
Bruns, A. (2008.) Open source software development: Probabilistic eyeballs. In A. Bruns, . Blogs, Wikipedia,second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. (pp. 37-68) New York: Peter Lang.
Lee,D. (2007, June 18). Citizens are the media in S. Korea. Los Angeles Time. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://globaltechforum.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=10938&title=Citizens+are+the+media+in+S.+Korea&categoryid=30&channelid=4
Open Source Initiative. (2007)Home. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.opensource.org/
Friday, April 25, 2008
Flashing...lights, lights, lights, lights
NEWSFLASH!
Conventional media outlets and media moguls are no longer in denial about the power of the internet and its users and produsers and the threat they pose to traditional operating/business models.
According to Trendwatching.com (as cited in Bruns 2008), from Web 2.0 a new generation of users has emerged, Generation C. This group of users did not suddenly just “appear” but are from a long line of models concerning the emergence of informed and active consumers or users, from Alvin Toffler’s ‘prosumer’, to Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller’s description of the ‘pro-am’ trend, John Hartley’s concept ‘citizenconsumer’ and Yochai Benkler’s ‘common-based peer production’ (Bruns 2008). Generation C has not formed from an age demographic, but is composed of those who have the ability to use technology to collaboratively create, edit and share content. As discussed in my previous blog, users are no longer restricted to passive consumption of information and content as with Web 1.0 and Generation C represents the group who will really use the internet. What does this mean for companies such as traditional news media outlets? For a starts it means such companies and business will have to:
- adapt to the online environment because the number of “inky finger” consumers is declining,
- find a way to embrace, incorporate or at least acknowledge user created content and produsage or otherwise try and compete with a consumer trend that with or without their approval will continue
-understand the behaviour and usage of the internet by Generation C and not only try draw this group to their business, but discover how the business can cater for this group
Currently, Australia has one of the most concentrated media sectors in the world and Rupert Murdoch owns a majority of news publications in Australia as well as other media assets locally and also internationally. Now, even though Murdoch may have what some have described as a “stranglehold” over Australia’s media, even as a self proclaimed “digital immigrant” he understands the power of online and user created content. His acquisition of popular social networking site MySpace, shows that maybe he understands technology and its users better than he knows. Or maybe he’s just a damn good businessman. Either way, his online acquisitions show that he and News Corporation are no longer ignoring, hoping and praying that the digital revolution will just disappear and know that their ability to adapt to the online environment is vital.
Murdoch (2005) acknowledges that in regards to news “they [consumers] want to question, to probe, to offer a different angle”. When you look at online newspaper articles on sites such as The Daily Telegraph, topical news items and even stories one would think no one would be interested in, have pages of comments posted by users wanting to have their say on an issue and offer their insight. Then there are those users who actually want to create content, such as:
- citizen journalists who upload news videos to YouTube or publish reports online
- users who want to tell others about what is happening in their lives and connect with friends and likeminded people on sites such as MySpace
-people who want to discuss and comment upon issues through sites such as Blogger
- users who want to tag and share useful sites with others using Delicious and the like
-those who want to engage in produsage, edit and enhance existing content on Wikipedia
For Generation C in particular, as the group with the skills to use the technology available to them, there are many ways for them to create and provide personalised, individual and alternate content and views and enhance existing knowledge to fuel collective intelligence. But where and how do traditional companies fit in?As Murdoch (2005) points out, “they [consumers] want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it”. Recognising the need to encompass this change in consumerism, Murdoch (2005) suggested the following changes
- Encourage readers to engage with editors and reporters through online discussion
-Experiment with using bloggers to supplement online news coverage
-Possibility of incorporating audio, video clips and podcasts
Now that companies (or at least some) recognise and acknowledge the changes in consumer behaviour, (particularly with regard to online content creation), have some ideas as how to implement user content and involve users, perhaps another topic for discussion is how intellectual property legislation and copyright laws will protect users and their creations and deal with communal content ownership and online content that continually evolves and changes, which therefore cannot be dealt with in the same manner as “finished” product.
Bruns, A (2008). The future is user-led:The path towards widespread produsage.Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf
Murdoch, R. (2005) Speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American
Society of Newspaper Editors. News Corporation. Retreieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html
Conventional media outlets and media moguls are no longer in denial about the power of the internet and its users and produsers and the threat they pose to traditional operating/business models.
According to Trendwatching.com (as cited in Bruns 2008), from Web 2.0 a new generation of users has emerged, Generation C. This group of users did not suddenly just “appear” but are from a long line of models concerning the emergence of informed and active consumers or users, from Alvin Toffler’s ‘prosumer’, to Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller’s description of the ‘pro-am’ trend, John Hartley’s concept ‘citizenconsumer’ and Yochai Benkler’s ‘common-based peer production’ (Bruns 2008). Generation C has not formed from an age demographic, but is composed of those who have the ability to use technology to collaboratively create, edit and share content. As discussed in my previous blog, users are no longer restricted to passive consumption of information and content as with Web 1.0 and Generation C represents the group who will really use the internet. What does this mean for companies such as traditional news media outlets? For a starts it means such companies and business will have to:
- adapt to the online environment because the number of “inky finger” consumers is declining,
- find a way to embrace, incorporate or at least acknowledge user created content and produsage or otherwise try and compete with a consumer trend that with or without their approval will continue
-understand the behaviour and usage of the internet by Generation C and not only try draw this group to their business, but discover how the business can cater for this group
Currently, Australia has one of the most concentrated media sectors in the world and Rupert Murdoch owns a majority of news publications in Australia as well as other media assets locally and also internationally. Now, even though Murdoch may have what some have described as a “stranglehold” over Australia’s media, even as a self proclaimed “digital immigrant” he understands the power of online and user created content. His acquisition of popular social networking site MySpace, shows that maybe he understands technology and its users better than he knows. Or maybe he’s just a damn good businessman. Either way, his online acquisitions show that he and News Corporation are no longer ignoring, hoping and praying that the digital revolution will just disappear and know that their ability to adapt to the online environment is vital.
Murdoch (2005) acknowledges that in regards to news “they [consumers] want to question, to probe, to offer a different angle”. When you look at online newspaper articles on sites such as The Daily Telegraph, topical news items and even stories one would think no one would be interested in, have pages of comments posted by users wanting to have their say on an issue and offer their insight. Then there are those users who actually want to create content, such as:
- citizen journalists who upload news videos to YouTube or publish reports online
- users who want to tell others about what is happening in their lives and connect with friends and likeminded people on sites such as MySpace
-people who want to discuss and comment upon issues through sites such as Blogger
- users who want to tag and share useful sites with others using Delicious and the like
-those who want to engage in produsage, edit and enhance existing content on Wikipedia
For Generation C in particular, as the group with the skills to use the technology available to them, there are many ways for them to create and provide personalised, individual and alternate content and views and enhance existing knowledge to fuel collective intelligence. But where and how do traditional companies fit in?As Murdoch (2005) points out, “they [consumers] want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it”. Recognising the need to encompass this change in consumerism, Murdoch (2005) suggested the following changes
- Encourage readers to engage with editors and reporters through online discussion
-Experiment with using bloggers to supplement online news coverage
-Possibility of incorporating audio, video clips and podcasts
Now that companies (or at least some) recognise and acknowledge the changes in consumer behaviour, (particularly with regard to online content creation), have some ideas as how to implement user content and involve users, perhaps another topic for discussion is how intellectual property legislation and copyright laws will protect users and their creations and deal with communal content ownership and online content that continually evolves and changes, which therefore cannot be dealt with in the same manner as “finished” product.
Bruns, A (2008). The future is user-led:The path towards widespread produsage.Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf
Murdoch, R. (2005) Speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American
Society of Newspaper Editors. News Corporation. Retreieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Today, we're going to teach you some fun facts about Salmon, And a brand new dance!
Now that I have your attention...
Web 1.0 V Web 2.0
“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform” (O’Reilly as cited in Bruns, 2008)
Key difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0?
While Web1.0 was more “one way”, web 2.0 allows consumers to be more involved in creating, contributing, editing and sharing the content they were once only able to passively consume.
Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0
Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing
Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities
Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer to peer
Web 1.0 was about HTML, Web 2.0 is about XML
Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs
Web 1.0 was about portals, Web 2.0 is about RSS
Web 1.0 was about taxonomy, Web 2.0 is about tags
Web 1.0 was about wires, Web 2.0 is about wireless
Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing
Web 1.0 was about IPOs, Web 2.0 is about trade sales
Web 1.0 was about Netscape, Web 2.0 is about Google
Web 1.0 was about web forms, Web 2.0 is about web applications
Web 1.0 was about screen scraping, Web 2.0 is about APIs
Web 1.0 was about dialup, Web 2.0 is about broadband
Web 1.0 was about hardware costs, Web 2.0 is about bandwidth costs
(http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/)
Consumers who no longer merely consume, but interact with content are defined by Bruns (2008) as produsers as they are also producers of information and knowledge; their online usage is productive. Web 2.0 enables users around the world to contribute online in ways that web 1.0 did not allow for. While some encourage and support the produser trend, others are highly critical of the shift allowing consumers to participate more in the online environment. The role of produsers; the quality of their work and editing and the impact of this trend on businesses are some of the main issues surrounding web 2.0.
The quality of produser information is a debatable topic, with some claiming it to provide valuable information and alternate points of view while others condemn consumer input as lacking in credibility and value. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit and is a collaborative produser effort. According to Wikipedia (2008) itself, at present the site has 2,339,077 articles just in English, while the Britannica has approximately 85,000 articles and Encarta contains around 630,000 articles. This illustrates the dedication of produsers to contribute and enhance content, some of which may have been ignored and overlooked by traditional information sources. Some critics however mock the value of user participation and one has labelled Wikipedia as “no more reliable than the output of a millions monkeys banging away at their typewriters” (Keen as cited in Levy, 2007). Others such as Bruns (2008) dispute this view and argue that sites like Wikipedia in regards to quality, are matching such publications as the Encyclopedia Britannica as the quality of online content is gradually improved as large communities of participants make small changes to already existing information.
Criticism of user participation and produser content in regards to quality may be used to disguise a deeper fear that a power shift is occurring between consumers and business, companies and authoritative information sources. For example, traditional print media sources have been responsible for providing the community with news for some time and have had the ability to influence and dictate public opinion. Traditionally, journalists would collect information and write up reports, editors would then review their work and news would get published accordingly. Now, users themselves can create, edit and alter information online. According to Saunders (2007) some reasons as to why people are engaging in and with user created content is as it provides and allows for alternate news and views that are ignored or silenced in mainstream media to be voiced and pushes boundaries of debate. Whereas once traditional news media outlets were in a position of high power, with the ability to tell consumers what to think about, what is important and what the facts are, produser content is threatening this authority. For traditional new sources and professional journalists, “for the first time, its hegemony as gatekeeper of news is threatened by not just new technology and competitors but by the audience it serves" (Bowman & Willis, 2005).
According to Bruns (2008), commercial adaptation to produsage will aid in accelerating the produsage trend whilst maintaining industry stability, whereas as negative efforts to undermine produsage may too accelerate the trend. I think that traditional news and information sources must acknowledge and react to produsage and participatory culture and this shift from passive to active consumers, as the situation the music industry is now in (eg. Music piracy and diminishing need for “middle men” between consumers and artists) is an example of how dangerous ignoring consumer trends and activities can be.
Bowman, S. ,& Willis, W. (2005). The future is here, but do news media companies see it? 59 (10), 6-10. Cambridge:Nieman Reports. Retrieved 14 September, 2007, from ProQuest Database.
Bruns, A. (2008). Introduction. Blogs , Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. (Chapter 1). Retrieved April 19, 2008, from http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20-%20Introduction.pdf
Bruns, A. (2008). Produsage:Towards a broader framework for user-led creation. Retrieved April 19, 2008 , from http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20(Creativity%20and%20Cognition%202007).pdf
Bruns, A (2008). The future is user-led:The path towards widespread produsage.Retrieved April 19, 2008, from http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf
Levy, S (2007).Invasion of the web amateurs. Newsweek. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17661199/site/newsweek
Saunders, B. (2007). Blogging, citizen journalism and web 2.0. The Kids Just Don’t Read Newspapers No More Part 2. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. [Lecture:KCB102 Media & Society: From the Printing Press to the Internet]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Step 1 Start blogging
Ok so I’ve finally started blogging!So my footy team lost on the weekend boohoo but I scored a sweet new job yay yah!I don’t think this is supposed to be a “personal” blog so moving onto more unit related issues...Now I may not be the most dedicated KCB201er but hey I’m making... some sort of effort.
So Online V Offline... Now KCB201 is not my favourite unit, which is probably reflected in my lack of attendance in lectures and tutorials! It’s nothing personal against the lecturer or tutor I just think I’m more interested in the offline and not what’s happening online or with technology, even though what’s happening online is undeniably impacting on the offline world in a BIG way...
Two of my housemates seem to live in the cyber world, preferring to talk to friends in Asia over Skype or messenger all day and engage in online communities day and night rather than socialise with the people around them. Bruns (2008) points out that on the internet, regardless of such factors as geographical location, ethnicity, physical disability or personality limitations people can connect with like-minded people and this is quite liberating for some. It’s great for my housemates, who can talk to people all over the world from the comfort of their rooms without being judged on their characteristics, habits and other factors (such as compulsive hand washing, shutting the house door 5 times in a row before leaving, shredding toilet paper...oh the list goes on but enough for now) that may negatively influence one’s ability to socialise in the offline world.
I think that while the internet is an enabler, the case of my housemates also illustrates that while the internet can be a tool for online social interaction and communication, at the same time it can also act as a tool for offline social isolation and exclusion. Nie and Ebring’s study (as cited in Flew, 2004, p.68) found that people may become more socially isolated or depressed as they increase their internet usage. While I believe this to be true in alot of cases (or maybe just with my housemates,), on the otherhand I also think that maybe some people would be shy or anti social even if the internet did not exist. Maybe in some cases, people who are “addicted” to the internet and act in an anti-social manner or feel uncomfortable in offline situations would be like this even without MySpace, Messenger and the internet. In fact, maybe they are more social, even though they are not engaging in face-to-face interaction, thanks to the internet.
For me, using social networking sites such as MySpace and Windows Messenger positively impacts on my offline social life and I guess the two are starting to blur. I would never discuss important issues over the internet just as you would not “air your dirty laundry” in public. However, for general chit chat or organising to catch up with someone in the “real world” the internet is very useful. I also rely on the internet to find out about new music, as music can appear online on such sites as MySpace and YouTube days, weeks and even months before appearing in stores.
Recently I also read an article on Ninemsn (which sadly accounts for most of my news intake!) about cyber bullying. Nowadays, bullying can happen at school and at home, with people spreading rumours online and sending threatening and malicious messages and threats via the internet. According to the article I read, the solution to cyber bullying is not as simple as signing out of messenger or turning off the computer (Bartlett & Gaitz, 2008). I guess this is because offline and online are becoming more interconnected; what happens at school can follow you home and vice versa. Cyber bullying is something I don’t completely understand, because when I was in school, I don’t remember hearing about “cyber bullying” once and I only graduated in 2006. I don’t know if it was because people “back in the day” preferred to physically fight and hit each other with crow bars and ukuleles or because victims never complained. I don’t know how relevant this is but I think it does highlight how online and offline behaviour can intersect and is becoming harder and harder to separate.
So I’m thinking now that I’ve got this blog thing goin on, I should probably start to use more references...
Bartlett,L., (Reporter) & Gaitz,G. (Producer). (2008, April 13). Cyber Bullies. Sixty Minutes. [Television broadcast transcript]. Nine Television. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=444908
Bruns,A. (2008, April 10). Online communities [Podcast:KCB201 virtual cultures]. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Flew,T. (2004). Virtual Cultures.In T. Flew. New media:an introduction. (pp.61-82). Melbourne:OUP.
So Online V Offline... Now KCB201 is not my favourite unit, which is probably reflected in my lack of attendance in lectures and tutorials! It’s nothing personal against the lecturer or tutor I just think I’m more interested in the offline and not what’s happening online or with technology, even though what’s happening online is undeniably impacting on the offline world in a BIG way...
Two of my housemates seem to live in the cyber world, preferring to talk to friends in Asia over Skype or messenger all day and engage in online communities day and night rather than socialise with the people around them. Bruns (2008) points out that on the internet, regardless of such factors as geographical location, ethnicity, physical disability or personality limitations people can connect with like-minded people and this is quite liberating for some. It’s great for my housemates, who can talk to people all over the world from the comfort of their rooms without being judged on their characteristics, habits and other factors (such as compulsive hand washing, shutting the house door 5 times in a row before leaving, shredding toilet paper...oh the list goes on but enough for now) that may negatively influence one’s ability to socialise in the offline world.
I think that while the internet is an enabler, the case of my housemates also illustrates that while the internet can be a tool for online social interaction and communication, at the same time it can also act as a tool for offline social isolation and exclusion. Nie and Ebring’s study (as cited in Flew, 2004, p.68) found that people may become more socially isolated or depressed as they increase their internet usage. While I believe this to be true in alot of cases (or maybe just with my housemates,), on the otherhand I also think that maybe some people would be shy or anti social even if the internet did not exist. Maybe in some cases, people who are “addicted” to the internet and act in an anti-social manner or feel uncomfortable in offline situations would be like this even without MySpace, Messenger and the internet. In fact, maybe they are more social, even though they are not engaging in face-to-face interaction, thanks to the internet.
For me, using social networking sites such as MySpace and Windows Messenger positively impacts on my offline social life and I guess the two are starting to blur. I would never discuss important issues over the internet just as you would not “air your dirty laundry” in public. However, for general chit chat or organising to catch up with someone in the “real world” the internet is very useful. I also rely on the internet to find out about new music, as music can appear online on such sites as MySpace and YouTube days, weeks and even months before appearing in stores.
Recently I also read an article on Ninemsn (which sadly accounts for most of my news intake!) about cyber bullying. Nowadays, bullying can happen at school and at home, with people spreading rumours online and sending threatening and malicious messages and threats via the internet. According to the article I read, the solution to cyber bullying is not as simple as signing out of messenger or turning off the computer (Bartlett & Gaitz, 2008). I guess this is because offline and online are becoming more interconnected; what happens at school can follow you home and vice versa. Cyber bullying is something I don’t completely understand, because when I was in school, I don’t remember hearing about “cyber bullying” once and I only graduated in 2006. I don’t know if it was because people “back in the day” preferred to physically fight and hit each other with crow bars and ukuleles or because victims never complained. I don’t know how relevant this is but I think it does highlight how online and offline behaviour can intersect and is becoming harder and harder to separate.
So I’m thinking now that I’ve got this blog thing goin on, I should probably start to use more references...
Bartlett,L., (Reporter) & Gaitz,G. (Producer). (2008, April 13). Cyber Bullies. Sixty Minutes. [Television broadcast transcript]. Nine Television. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=444908
Bruns,A. (2008, April 10). Online communities [Podcast:KCB201 virtual cultures]. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Flew,T. (2004). Virtual Cultures.In T. Flew. New media:an introduction. (pp.61-82). Melbourne:OUP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)