We've reached the point where nearly everyone we know is on Facebook or social media, and those who revolt against it sometimes end up coming right back. It's like a bad relationship. Everyone has those people in their lives (or at least on their Facebook) who share every detail of their lives, every meal they've made, event they've attended, essentially what they're doing 24/7. Aside from it being extremely annoying, it is kind of a sad indication of where we've headed, and it's really scary to imagine that it will get worse. There seems to be a 'shunning' or exclusion of those not on Facebook (who doesn't use Facebook to plan most of their events, guilty...) and it's hard to imagine not having Facebook to update you on what those people back in high school are up to.
So, where is this headed next? We've hit the point (almost) where people can share so much that there is little mystery left in our knowledge about what our friends are doing. We can already share videos and photos instantly on Facebook, show where we are when we're posting it and chat instantly with our friends all in one place. The timeline showed there was more Facebook could create, but is there really more we can share about ourselves? Jenkins talked about how technology has fostered this new culture or sharing (and over-sharing) and that it has become ritualized and endemic to our networks. Even if we try to rebel, it's hard not to use Facebook for events or share big news in our lives or look at what those people are up to...it's hard to resist. So what happens, when there isn't anything left to share? I'm sure we will find more...maybe they'll be a new app to share every meal or every project we've worked on. Hopefully we're done trying to develop new ways to share or new information to share, because at the end of the day sometimes it's definitely too much information (yes, I know that is a tad corny, sorry).
Friday, October 28, 2011
Freedom? Power? Both?
The advent and proliferation of social media has enabled media consumers to the quickly share information across the world. I can log onto Facebook, recommend a film, song, or television show to my former Kyrgyz exchange student, Anton. Moments later he could be downloading it from where he lives in China (that is if he has successfully circumvented various firewalls first).
We do live in a Network Society as Castells suggests. Social media networks like Facebook and Twitter have granted us the freedom to forge relationships with those who may be geographically distant yet ideologically close. Social media has already demonstrated its ability to facilitate demonstrations and protests, particularly in the Middle East this year. On a political level, social media’s existence in the network society does present the opportunity for users to undermine the role of the nation-state. However, for it to become such an agency of power requires users of social media and the mechanics of such networks to seize control from nation-states so that they possess more than just the freedom to share information but the power to turn information into action.
So back to Anton. He loves film trilogy, The Matrix. When he stayed with my family in 2003, I was subjected to the midnight showing of the final installment because Anton was leaving the next day and he argued that the film wouldn’t arrive in Kyrgyzstan until months or even years later. Flash-forward to present day. Anton teaches in China now and while e-mailing recently I referenced YouTube and Flickr and explained what they were in excruciating detail. Slightly insulted, he responded, “What? You think it’s the Soviet Union again and I live in Siberia or there’s bears walking around in the street. I know what those are!” My initial embarrassment segued into consideration and appreciation of how the Internet and social media really have granted us the freedom to independently search for and access information even in places we may incorrectly believe to lack such freedoms (for the most part).
The power to organize information into legitimate threats to the nation-state, however, seems somewhat limited at this point. While use of social media in the Arab Spring has proved that Twitter and Facebook can, in fact, facilitate coordination of protests, it is at the mercy of those who control such networks.
We return to Anton in China who I haven’t heard from in months because he hasn’t been able to access Facebook or his Gmail account. While I don’t know the specifics of why his access has been blocked, it demonstrates that we only have network freedom to the extent we are granted by the gatekeepers’ power.
In the context of social and political movements, social media enable the rapid sharing of information to those who share similar ideologies and facilitate organization and coordination of demonstrations. The power of these demonstrations to inspire change, however, is limited by the nation-state’s power to grant freedom to access technological networks. We can look at the Iranian government’s attempts to crackdown on Twitter during the 2009 Iranian Presidential Elections. While turning off the Internet is pretty difficult, attempts to do so in Egypt earlier this year illustrate that the power to do so does exist.
It really does beg the question of who really possess the power of Internet and social media in the Network Society.
Musings of a Facebook cynic
We read about network society this week and then, logically, discussed it in class. Where "network" used to be a word that fell on the decidedly PC side of the "Hi, I'm a Mac/And I'm a PC" spectrum, now it's a hip buzzword that is sometimes just synonymous with "Facebook." So, not surprisingly - drumroll please - Facebook is what I'm here to talk about today. I know Facebook has been discussed, dissected, dissed, and debated to death. But I'm adding my voice to the rabble because, by Jove, I have a bone to pick with online social networks.
In discussing the network society, we talked in class about the fact that the focus is not on individual nodes, but rather on the association between them. In theory, this would make Facebook a great place to (you guessed it) network and stay connected with our friends. And I won't debate the fact that many Facebook users do indeed connect with their friends on Facebook through messages, chat, wall posts, photos, comments, videos (yes, those WILL be coming back to haunt us), games like Farmville, those silly virtual gifts you can send people, and a plethora of other socially/digitally-constructed methods for connection. However, I find when scrolling through my "news feed" that many of my friends are using Facebook to create and promote their personal brand in the public sphere, rather than connect directly with someone they care about. In high school terms, we call people whose every interaction is engineered to the end of creation and promotion of a personal brand "fake." In loose network society terms, there's so much focusing on the "me" node that associations or linkages are ignored or at least given a backseat.
I'd love to study the psychology of Facebook, because I'm truly fascinated by the ways people use it. I always wonder, why write on someone's wall rather than sending them a text or Facebook message? There's something suspect about the public nature of the "wall" forum... isn't it often just used as a place to mark our friendship territory by sharing - not only with our friend, but with the world - an inside joke or funny memory? Or what about the Facebook status? Aren't these generally used as a way to showcase something about ourselves? Why bother posting a deep philosophical quote, comment on the latest sports game, celebration of a success, or woeful reflection on something sad? It seems to me that we're all so excited to be able to invent who we are online that we forget about connecting with others. In real life, we can't edit the moments where we look bad, say something awkward, or act otherwise human.
I have a dear friend who suffered a terrible loss about a year ago. I had to find out about it via Facebook - and it was pure luck that her post was on my news feed at the right time, or I wouldn't have known until it was a bit untimely for condolences. When we go through a tough time, it's only fair that we want others to be there for us - but why don't we ask our friends directly? It's difficult to sit someone down and tell them that you're hurting, but that's the way humans have had to do it for a long time, and we shouldn't be shying away from it. Uncomfortable moments go hand in hand with the good ones. I want to be happy for my friends in their successes, and there for my friends in times of sorrow, and Facebook feels like a sorry forum in which to do those things. I think Facebook is a fun, frivolous, and often-useful-for-spying-on-people platform, but in condensing our interactions to the online realm, we miss out on so much of the awkward, awesome, REAL life - complete with actual associations between nodes - that's out there for the taking.
In discussing the network society, we talked in class about the fact that the focus is not on individual nodes, but rather on the association between them. In theory, this would make Facebook a great place to (you guessed it) network and stay connected with our friends. And I won't debate the fact that many Facebook users do indeed connect with their friends on Facebook through messages, chat, wall posts, photos, comments, videos (yes, those WILL be coming back to haunt us), games like Farmville, those silly virtual gifts you can send people, and a plethora of other socially/digitally-constructed methods for connection. However, I find when scrolling through my "news feed" that many of my friends are using Facebook to create and promote their personal brand in the public sphere, rather than connect directly with someone they care about. In high school terms, we call people whose every interaction is engineered to the end of creation and promotion of a personal brand "fake." In loose network society terms, there's so much focusing on the "me" node that associations or linkages are ignored or at least given a backseat.
I'd love to study the psychology of Facebook, because I'm truly fascinated by the ways people use it. I always wonder, why write on someone's wall rather than sending them a text or Facebook message? There's something suspect about the public nature of the "wall" forum... isn't it often just used as a place to mark our friendship territory by sharing - not only with our friend, but with the world - an inside joke or funny memory? Or what about the Facebook status? Aren't these generally used as a way to showcase something about ourselves? Why bother posting a deep philosophical quote, comment on the latest sports game, celebration of a success, or woeful reflection on something sad? It seems to me that we're all so excited to be able to invent who we are online that we forget about connecting with others. In real life, we can't edit the moments where we look bad, say something awkward, or act otherwise human.
I have a dear friend who suffered a terrible loss about a year ago. I had to find out about it via Facebook - and it was pure luck that her post was on my news feed at the right time, or I wouldn't have known until it was a bit untimely for condolences. When we go through a tough time, it's only fair that we want others to be there for us - but why don't we ask our friends directly? It's difficult to sit someone down and tell them that you're hurting, but that's the way humans have had to do it for a long time, and we shouldn't be shying away from it. Uncomfortable moments go hand in hand with the good ones. I want to be happy for my friends in their successes, and there for my friends in times of sorrow, and Facebook feels like a sorry forum in which to do those things. I think Facebook is a fun, frivolous, and often-useful-for-spying-on-people platform, but in condensing our interactions to the online realm, we miss out on so much of the awkward, awesome, REAL life - complete with actual associations between nodes - that's out there for the taking.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Hybridity and Italy
When I studied abroad in Rome for a semester I took a class called Italian Media and Popular Culture. We talked about Berlusconi and his ownership of the largest media companies, but we also talked about how women appear on the majority of Italian television shows. A lot of the shows completely objectify women, and there were rarely any popular television shows were women were portrayed in a positive light. Most of the Americans in the class were horrified that this is how women appeared on Italian television, but the Italian students just said it's what's popular and while it's horrible we still know there are smart women out there and it doesn't really matter.
There were also the example where American television had a marked impact on some of the Italian shows, like the set-up of some of the game shows. The effects of hybridity were clear in some of these senses, and the Italian students even said that some of these shows were no worse than ones that the Americans watched. It was the norm. There was a complete mix of different cultures, American, Italian and even British that were appearing in the Italian television shows. It wasn't like the shows were seeking to completely model the American shows, they just used them as a basis to develop their own and mold them to become more popular in Italy. It was more a mix than a complete domination of American culture.
There were also the example where American television had a marked impact on some of the Italian shows, like the set-up of some of the game shows. The effects of hybridity were clear in some of these senses, and the Italian students even said that some of these shows were no worse than ones that the Americans watched. It was the norm. There was a complete mix of different cultures, American, Italian and even British that were appearing in the Italian television shows. It wasn't like the shows were seeking to completely model the American shows, they just used them as a basis to develop their own and mold them to become more popular in Italy. It was more a mix than a complete domination of American culture.
Friday, October 21, 2011
MyTunes
I have found memories of being subjected to Top 40 while riding in my mom’s minivan to and from school. I regularly belted out the hits of musical luminaries like Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Ace of Bass, and Boyz II Men. During those melodic trips to and from whatever destination, it was apparent that relatively few artists received airplay and most songs had a definite “reign” atop the airplay charts. It was relatively easy to monitor the pulse of popular music during this musical era.
That is until the advent of iTunes. Achieving success in the music industry during the pre-iTunes period was measured and accomplished through a combination of marketing campaigns, televised performances, music videos, and album sales. While that has remained static (artists are still performing on morning shows, still making music videos, and still releasing albums) other elements have influenced the rate at which a song or artists tops the chart as well as the frequency.
Digital technology and portable media players have revolutionized the music industry enabling consumers to individualize their content and construct their own musical niche. Blogs catering to specific genres and niche satellite radio channels have replaced traditional radio the primary source of music. As listeners no longer rely on traditional radio to cultivate awareness of new music, record success is no longer determined by appeal to a wide swath of the population, but rather through appealing to a specific demographic. One blogger even compares it to recent elections and candidates’ efforts to appeal to voters who support or oppose a particular cause.
I have found memories of being subjected to Top 40 while riding in my mom’s minivan to and from school. I regularly belted out the hits of musical luminaries like Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Ace of Bass, and Boyz II Men. During those melodic trips to and from whatever destination, it was apparent that relatively few artists received airplay and most songs had a definite “reign” atop the airplay charts. It was relatively easy to monitor the pulse of popular music during this musical era.
That is until the advent of iTunes. Achieving success in the music industry during the pre-iTunes period was measured and accomplished through a combination of marketing campaigns, televised performances, music videos, and album sales. While that has remained static (artists are still performing on morning shows, still making music videos, and still releasing albums) other elements have influenced the rate at which a song or artists tops the chart as well as the frequency.
Digital technology and portable media players have revolutionized the music industry enabling consumers to individualize their content and construct their own musical niche. Blogs catering to specific genres and niche satellite radio channels have replaced traditional radio the primary source of music. As listeners no longer rely on traditional radio to cultivate awareness of new music, record success is no longer determined by appeal to a wide swath of the population, but rather through appealing to a specific demographic. One blogger even compares it to recent elections and candidates’ efforts to appeal to voters who support or oppose a particular cause.
Self-determination of content has forced the music industry to alter their formulas for success and implement new strategies aimed at the new media generation. Promoting artists and new content through Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook exemplify record executives’ efforts to appeal to targeted audiences by linking content of similar artists to each other. It also may explain the rise in popularity of “featured” artists with the rationale being “You like artist XYZ? Well you will certainly like artist ABC then here have a listen.” YouTube videos featuring fan covers or parodies of songs are probably more likely to generate interest in a song or artist more so than traditional promotion. Hello, Sophia Grace Brownlee’s “Super Bass”
As a result of the “nichification” of the music industry the communal sense of music has all but evaporated. But lamenting the loss of shared musical experience means greater diversity of content for the rest of us. We can pick and chose tracks as we like with most of us having little regard for what is topping the chart at the moment.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Hallyu Wave Stateside
In light of the discussion this week, I'm going to pimp the site I write for, but at least it's not my work ;) Why K-pop is Hell-Bent on Making it Stateside. With all of Hayden's talk of the Hallyu wave, arguably there is a second wave in process, at least with the export of Korean musical acts in Japan. And now one of the biggest girl groups (literally there's nine of them!) in Korea has come out with a new album with a somewhat sudden decision to release their lead single on Itunes in Korean and English. Just cause, here is the music video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0C03XBns9c
Could you see them performing on Letterman or Leno?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0C03XBns9c
Could you see them performing on Letterman or Leno?
SNARK ATTACK! & my new celebrity crush
I wanted to talk today about Erin Burnett's "Seriously?!" segment about Occupy Wall Street that's been all the buzz lately. There are predictions that OWS will last longer than she will. I'm not so sure about that, but she's certainly played right to the belittlement of the movement.
The video here, in case you don't TiVo Ms. Burnett's show.
My reaction:
1. Since when is it good journalism to interview ONE person and call it a day? I'm no journalism student, but I don't think one guy (who's being ridiculed for being unemployed?!) is particularly representative of a movement that's purposely styled as being leaderless.
2. I'm also not a drummer, but even I know those are CONGA drums (and, if my eyes don't deceive, a djembe, broken bass drum, and 5-gallon tub) in the video clip that corresponds with Erin describing "bongos" (0:47). They are not bongos. Bongos are shown in the previous clip (0:46, meant to illustrate "banjos"). If you're going to mock something, Erin Burnett, please at least know what you're talking about. (That said, come on OWS guys, I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to use drumsticks with congas...you're just hurtin' the cause.)
3. I'm not a pop culture expert either. But I'm aware of the existence of a funny bit called "Really?!" (or "Really?! with Seth and Amy" or "Really?! with Seth Meyers" from Saturday Night Live. Erin Burnett and her staff have to know about this, right? This article backs me up, too. So I figure this is a good time to commemorate Burnett's shout-out to SNL with a little clip from 2009, which is fitting in its re-illustration that the anger at Wall Street isn't brand new. (This article gives some background, for your reading pleasure):
http://www.hulu.com/
4. Uh oh, Wikipedia says she was wrong anyway! Hmmm, I almost trust Wikipedia as much as I trust Erin Burnett right now; at least Wikipedia spares me the attitude.
Fortunately, it doesn't seem like everyone is so confused or immediately judgmental about the OWS movement. Now, John C. Reilly lookalikes aren't usually my cup of tea, but Alan Grayson is my new celebrity crush. This is why:
http://www.politicususa.com/
I'd love to hear anyone's reactions on whether Burnett gave a fair shake to the OWS protesters. We've been talking in class about how the media doesn't tend to lend much credibility in their reporting of movements that challenge the status quo, and I think this might be a really perfect example. They're not quite ignoring it (which I believe was the media's first reaction to OWS), but by mocking it, they're not exactly legitimizing it now either. How do we get to know whether it's truly legit or not, if thisshark snark attack is the type of coverage we get?
The video here, in case you don't TiVo Ms. Burnett's show.
My reaction:
1. Since when is it good journalism to interview ONE person and call it a day? I'm no journalism student, but I don't think one guy (who's being ridiculed for being unemployed?!) is particularly representative of a movement that's purposely styled as being leaderless.
2. I'm also not a drummer, but even I know those are CONGA drums (and, if my eyes don't deceive, a djembe, broken bass drum, and 5-gallon tub) in the video clip that corresponds with Erin describing "bongos" (0:47). They are not bongos. Bongos are shown in the previous clip (0:46, meant to illustrate "banjos"). If you're going to mock something, Erin Burnett, please at least know what you're talking about. (That said, come on OWS guys, I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to use drumsticks with congas...you're just hurtin' the cause.)
3. I'm not a pop culture expert either. But I'm aware of the existence of a funny bit called "Really?!" (or "Really?! with Seth and Amy" or "Really?! with Seth Meyers" from Saturday Night Live. Erin Burnett and her staff have to know about this, right? This article backs me up, too. So I figure this is a good time to commemorate Burnett's shout-out to SNL with a little clip from 2009, which is fitting in its re-illustration that the anger at Wall Street isn't brand new. (This article gives some background, for your reading pleasure):
http://www.hulu.com/
4. Uh oh, Wikipedia says she was wrong anyway! Hmmm, I almost trust Wikipedia as much as I trust Erin Burnett right now; at least Wikipedia spares me the attitude.
Fortunately, it doesn't seem like everyone is so confused or immediately judgmental about the OWS movement. Now, John C. Reilly lookalikes aren't usually my cup of tea, but Alan Grayson is my new celebrity crush. This is why:
http://www.politicususa.com/
I'd love to hear anyone's reactions on whether Burnett gave a fair shake to the OWS protesters. We've been talking in class about how the media doesn't tend to lend much credibility in their reporting of movements that challenge the status quo, and I think this might be a really perfect example. They're not quite ignoring it (which I believe was the media's first reaction to OWS), but by mocking it, they're not exactly legitimizing it now either. How do we get to know whether it's truly legit or not, if this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)