Empowering the audience

The social network has had many revolutions. Convergence is vastly affecting the relationship between media technologies and audiences by empowering the audience through the use of online social media platforms. Convergence has allowed the audience to become a new type of active audience, positively changing the relationship between media technologies and audiences. Social networks empower users through a range of interactions such as participatory culture. Participatory culture allows the opportunity for interaction amongst media technology users. Social network users are no longer ‘the audience’ but now a new type of media creator as they are empowered through producing, sharing and consuming participatory culture.

Convergence is segueing a significant paradigm shift in the mediated public sphere. Media scholar Henry Jenkins defines convergence as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences”. This cooperation across multiple media platforms is changing the way the media industry works. Convergence produces audience empowerment, which changes the relationship between audiences and media technologies as audiences become more capable and involved in the medias construction. The boundary between production and reception has been blurred in the era of digitalization and convergence. Accordingly, there has been a rapid increase in social network revolutions.

In class this week we discussed how social network platforms have been used by activists and ordinary citizens in the 2010-2011 protests in the Middle East and North Africa, and the 2013-2014 protests in Ukraine. We also looked at the reactions of the authorities. Whilst learning about this I immediately thought back to the 2007 and 2011 Bersih rallies in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The rallies were held to promote electoral reform of free and fair elections in Malaysia. Participatory politics has been a popular mode for social media platforms. Political scientist Cathy J. Cohen defines participatory politics as “interactive, peer- based acts through which individuals and groups seek to exert both voice and influence on issues of public concern”. 

The first Bersih rally held in 2007 was not as successful as hoped because the monologic media stopped anything from being posted about the rally as the government itself opposed it. In 2007 most media was one-way communication known as monologic. This meant that messages were processed through several gatekeepers who then decided whether the message could be transferred through to the next gatekeeper.

The 2011 rally was a lot more successful and ended up going viral. This was because so much of today’s media is dialogic, meaning there are fewer or no gatekeepers to process messages. Therefore protesters were able to organise through social network sites and generate hash-tags to create awareness. Media scholar, Henry Jenkins, argues that, “the digital age has opened a new era of activism that offers the next generation new avenues into broader political participation”.  This exemplifies the powerful nature of media technology led participatory culture. The government could not do anything about these forums as they were held through dialogic media. This demonstrates how social network platforms have affected the relationship between media technologies and audiences through permitting the audience to have the power to become activists.

We can work together

When we studied the problems facing the Australian film industry this week I thought back to the last Australian film I watched…and I couldn’t remember. It has been that long since I have consumed an Australian made movie that I can’t even remember what it was. This here lays the central problem. There is not enough support from the Australian audience. Things aren’t looking to get any better either, as this year has been Australian cinema’s worst domestic performance in 10 years so the trend looks set to continue.

Australian films occupied 3.8% of the Australian box office share in 2013. Moreover, only 26 (6%) of the 421 films screened in Australian cinemas during 2013 were Australian. This is minimal in comparison to the United States, which provided 183 (43%) of the total. So what is the problem? Why does Australian films only occupy 3.8% of last years box office share? Why are we being dominated by overseas films?

Specialist in the area Carroll Harris believes “the problem is not in the substance of Australian films, but in the way they are distributed to an audience”. She doesn’t believe the plunging of Australian cinema should surprise Australians because the distribution and delivery of Australian films is very ordinary. After reading this article by Harris it inspired me for an idea for a proposal for a creative qualitative research project. I want to analyse audience distribution.

When looking at the audience distribution of a recent 2013 Australian movie Patrick it is easy to comprehend Harris’ point of view. The audience distribution of Patrick was very poor, as it was shown at just six cinemas nationwide. How can this movie be successful with such poor means of distribution? – It can’t. Harris asks, “Why are we shocked when an Australian film flops when it’s not accessible, not available, and most cinema goers don’t actually have the choice to watch it.” I think Harris hit the nail on the head here. It is impossible for a film to take off if only a very few have the chance to see it. Shawn O’Connor the Founder and President of Stratus Prep believes word of mouth “is the best advertisement possible”. Word of mouth advertising will not be successful and travel far if only a very few people see the film.

My design method would involve better distribution and advertising. Australian films will have a better chance if there is broader distribution across the country. There should also be more buzz created for them. I don’t remember the last advertisement I saw for an Australian film. This is because they have very low visibility. Let’s pull the nation together and boost Australian film advertisements. We should have social premiere nights where Australian’s can socialise and create awareness. I know I may be naïve and wishful thinking but if Australian’s work together to boost the Australian film industry overtime it will gain more funding, more viewers and be much more successful.

The Simpson’s debate

What sort of media regulations do you have around your house? Growing up I can remember the excitement of being babysat by my older brother, as he would let me watch whatever I wanted on TV. All I ever wanted to watch was The Simpson’s but this could only be done in the few rare times when mum and dad were out at 6:00pm when The Simpsons came on. I can remember winging to dad and asking why I couldn’t watch the fantastic show all my friends were speaking about when he was home. He always gave me the same answer, “You’re not old enough to watch The Simpson’s”. At the time this bubbled me with rage but I can see now that he was simply worried about the show corrupting me as a young child.

Scholars Sturken and Thomas believe technology is a primary platform for unpacking our deepest social fears and exploring potential for the future. This is precisely why my dad banned me from watching The Simpson’s because he had moral and social fears from the effects of this media.

This sort of media regulation doesn’t just happen at home. I can remember in 2007 when The Simpson’s movie came out there was another argument with my dad over the same old series. The movie was shown at the cinemas and rated PG-13 for irreverent humor throughout. This meant the Motion picture rating system suggested that those under 13 should not watch this movie. I was twelve at the time so I was very disappointed to hear this as I knew this meant my dad wouldn’t let me watch it. This public regulation demonstrated the public moral and social fears that derive from media.

Ratings placed on movies are all about space. There is only so much regulation that can restrict what I view in my own home. Dad tried to regulate my viewing of The Simpson’s but there was nothing to stop me watching it with my brother when he wasn’t home. The Motion picture rating system could advise me not to see a PG-13 movie when I was twelve but I later hired it out with my friends and watched it at home. This demonstrates the key element of space in regulation.

There have been studies on whether The Simpsons corrupts family values and there have also been bands on some of The Simpsons merchandise. These actions are both driven by anxieties and moral concerns. Do you think media regulation is just another moral panic or do you think it has legitimate reasoning?

The transformation of journalism

Convergence is vastly affecting the relationship between media technologies and audiences. The relationship is changing as audiences are becoming more involved with the mediated public sphere as convergence allows them to. New terms are arising such as ‘citizen journalism’, which demonstrates the modern day interaction between audience and media. The changes in media are quite remarkable. All media was once one way communication meaning it was monologic in nature. This meant that messages were processed through several gatekeepers who then decided whether the message could be transferred through to the next gatekeeper before being published. Today’s media is typically dialogic in nature, meaning there are no gatekeepers to process the person’s desired message, changing the relationship between media technologies and audiences.

The media has mutated from newspaper, to radio and now to online but what happened to the journalists throughout that transformation? Did they converge with the media platforms? Axel Bruns, was particularly insightful in answering my questions in one of this weeks readings. Bruns outlined the concept of ‘produsage’, which is a combination of the words “production” and “usage”. Produsage refers to today’s emerging user-led content.

A branch off from produsage is citizen journalism. Citizen journalism is the people formally known as the audience acting in participatory culture as journalists. Citizen journalism is becoming a collective intelligence and a collaboration of networks. Steven Johnson describes citizen journalism as “a suspension bridge made of pebbles”. By this metaphor he means the sum of citizen journalist reports add up to something more substantive.

I personally don’t think citizen journalism is of equal credibility to professional journalism. Professional journalists go through various training and years of experience before becoming a trustworthy and credible journalist and I believe that it should be this way. Whilst I like the idea of citizen journalists being part of the news-reporting process, I believe in credible journalists delivering the news that I can trust. Collective intelligence networks do not have gatekeepers and therefore citizen journalists are free to write whatever they like. 

In January 2013, mini-tornadoes and torrential rain thrashed southern Queensland in Australia. A citizen named Michael Bell captured unbelievable footage from his phone of the Sunshine Coast of Australia of a car emerging from the foam caused by ex-tropical cyclone Oswald. Layla Revis believes mobile technology has allowed citizen journalists to broadcast more effectively. The strong winds had whipped foam onto the beachfront as captured in this video by Michael’s camera. Michael was on location to capture this footage when journalists were not exemplifying a benefit of citizen journalism.

Michael chose to sell his footage to News Network, whom then verified the video and ran the news story including Michael’s video. In my opinion this is the most credible way to present a news story captured by a citizen journalist as his work was verified.

Only 2% of people can actually multitask

This week we looked at multitasking, “the simultaneous execution of more than one program or task by a single computer processor.” I decided to set up an experiment to do while writing this weeks blog. I opened safari and had several tabs open, I sat in my lounge room with people talking to me and I began to write my blog on multitasking while multitasking with other tabs open and speaking to my family. I found that after ten minutes or so of attempting to write my blog I had accomplished a lot. I had put up a new status on Facebook, checked my emails and had a nice conversation with mum. My blog was not one of these accomplishments, as I had written nothing but the title. This experiment made me realise that I am not effective with multitasking. Research on multitasking tells me that not many people are as only 2% of people can actually multitask.

Whilst I purposely set up the aforementioned experiment I sometimes don’t have a choice not to multitask. When blogging for this subject I am encouraged to click links that have me jumping across platforms frequently. This made me realise that multitasking is needed in some aspects of life. Multitasking is significant in any specific media domain. Media multitasking is “engaging in multiple media activities simultaneously, including multiple windows on a single media platform and/or multiple media”. I am media multitasking as I write this blog right now as I have Facebook and Hotmail open on separate tabs.

After reading the aforementioned statistic that only 2% of people can actually multitask I wonder just how effective my media multitasking is. Lee et al. found that multitasking “generates extraneous cognitive load that burdens the working memory”. This means that as I write my blog right now whilst multitasking I perhaps may be overloading my cognitive load.

Kelvin Lui and Alan Wong believe that multitasking is effective. They found that multitasking is “not deficient in all kinds of cognitive tasks”. They believe that media multitasking is effective in some situations.

After my exhausted search on whether multitasking is good or bad I conclude that whilst there are some researchers that sit on the fence or say it depends on the sitation like Lui and Wong did, I believe multitasking is bad. You may think this is bias because multitasking doesn’t work for me but I did find a lot of research to back me up. Kendra Cherry found that multitasking can reduce productivity by approximately 40-percent.

To conclude I will leave you with the message that multitasking is a risky decision. Maybe not so much with getting a blog done on time but definitely in situations like texting while driving. It can be the difference of life and death.

The declaration of war

Last week I discussed the reasons why I am against walled gardens. This week I will discuss an alternative to walled gardens. If you can’t remember what a “walled garden” is form my last post, it is when a software system has control over your applications, content or media. A walled garden controls spaces and curates content specifically chosen for the user. This then confines content and restricts variety. The alternative to a walled garden is open source formatting. This weeks lecture referred to an open source formatting Android user as an ‘opposing user’ which I found quite amusing as it sounds like the operating systems are at war… which they just might be.

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said, “I think Android hurts them more than it helps them. It’s just going to divide them and people who want to be their partners”. Android users and developers have very opposing views. Tim Bray an Android developer said, “[The Apple iPhone] is a sterile Disney-fried walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers… I hate it”. In my opinion I tend to agree more with Bray. I want an open platform where consumers have control over their applications, content and media. I am against the centralized control over information flow that Apple has with iOS. Apple inc has complete control over platform, content, and user.

Some have attempted to make iOS an open source by jailbreaking their iPhones. By doing this they can run apps on their iPhones that Apple hasn’t approved. This was not done unnoticed, “Apple threatened to disable any phone that had been jailbroken”. This blocks developers and enthusiast’s development. Android definitely seems to be the better option in my eyes and 80% of the market share worldwide agrees with me but I wonder just how open source it is.

After an exhausted search on the matter I found that Android is by definition an open source but not completely. “Once the code is released, Android developers can download it and do what they want with it, but they have no way of seeing what’s happening behind the scenes every day.” To me this says that it’s not as open as it claims. I do hope one day there is a completely open source platform. For now though, I think Android is a better option as it allows a better flow of information form being mostly open.

Is mass amateurisation so bad?

Clay Shirky says that, “Travelocity doesn’t make everyone a travel agent. It undermines the value of being travel agent at all, by fixing the inefficiencies travel agents are paid to overcome one booking at a time.” By this Shirky means that Travelocity does not replace or make everyone else a professional travel agent, it undermines the value of the profession by removing the inefficiencies. Shirky believes it’s a similar story with mass amateurization. Shirky’s “Everyone is a Media Outlet” describes mass amateurization as “the process by which a lot of ordinary people (the masses) obtain the tools and become fluent in using technologies that were once commonplace only to the professionals (the minority group) that utilized them”. As weblogs are not regulated and they’re free many people are opting to blog writing to express themselves. This doesn’t mean these people are professional writers. It instead leads to mass amateurization by removing the inefficiencies of publishers.

Weblogs remove inefficiencies by eliminating traditional publishers. A blogger has no boundaries or limits preventing them from producing content, whereas publishing takes hard work. This process eliminates amateurs in the field as it acts like a filter. The “vast majority of weblogs are amateur and will stay amateur, because a medium where someone can publish globally with no cost is ideal for those who do it for the love of the thing” and I tend to agree with this.

I performed an exhausted search on weblogs yesterday and was astounded by the amount of blogs I found. The unlimited reproduction and distribution of weblogs is what leads to the mass amateurization. When reflecting on Turkle’s and Ted’s comments from this week I don’t think I am nearly as cynical towards weblogs as them. Ted asked the question “What happens when everyone becomes a content produser?” in this weeks lecture. I believe that if everyone became a content produser weblogs would lose some credibility due to mass production and no filtering process but I also believe that people would be a lot less influenced by the media.

I believe traditional publishing will always be more prestigious than blog writing but I like the idea of everyone having an uncensored say. For example this blog here is a political blog that uncovers politics without the influence of the media. The media can sometimes sway an audience or give a bias report so I like the idea of having an uncensored blog to discuss political issues. Everyone is welcome to comment on the blog to have his or her uncensored say resulting in a wide range of views. Charlie Pierce runs the blog, an average man who is not a professional involved in politics. I have always believed that the perception of the media is usually the perception of the majority so I am very for this idea to receive a broader understanding through blogs. There are many politics blogs that add to the mass amateurization. Do you you think mass amateurization in this context is good or bad?

Are we holding back brilliance?

Do you agree to the terms and conditions? Scroll, scroll, scroll… yes. Do I have any idea what the terms and conditions said? No. Who else is guilty of this?

Lawrence Lessig says “Creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon the creativity that went before and that surrounds them now.” This statement is insightful, however, here are some issues with building creativity from previous and current surroundings. Copyright comes into context, as copyright law is needed to decipher what is stealing and what is taken inspiration.

Keven Kelly says, “The internet is the world’s largest copy machine”. At first I was quite puzzled by this statement but then I agreed with it. In the previous paragraph I admitted to not having any idea what the terms and conditions were. I’m not alone as only 7% of people read the full terms and conditions. This means that I have no idea of the copyright laws on the text I am about to gain inspiration or unknowingly or knowingly steal from.

Disney first took off when they began retelling ancient stories. Disney’s “key to success was the brilliance of the differences”. Disney was abiding by the terms and conditions of these ancient stories because the stories were in the public domain. Disney was built upon a base that was borrowed. Let me make it clear though that I’m not saying Walt Disney is not creative. The way Disney borrowed the creativity around him and mixed it with his astonishing talent to produce something new was awe-inspiring.

What is interesting to think about now is the strict copyright laws Disney has put in place considering their aforementioned actions. In 1998, the US passed a law to extend copyright to the life of the author, plus 70 years. This law enforcement was pushed by Disney so is derisively also called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Now have a think about how a company that was built off borrowing ideas from others can block other people borrowing ideas of them.

I never realised how much I am in entrapped in controlling laws or as Digc202 put it this week a “walled garden” where software systems have control over my applications, content or media. I want an open platform where consumers have control over their applications, content or media. As Ted put it in this weeks lecture there is a “centralized control over information flow” and after reading this weeks readings I don’t like this.

Lessig says, “Free cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less. Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so.” With the example of Disney I can now see how brilliance can be made from borrowing so why should we put a stop to this? Perhaps we should have a balance of the two. Boldrin & Levine (2007) claim “For all the emotion, it seems both sides agree that intellectual property laws need to strike a balance between providing sufficient incentive for creation and the freedom to make use of existing ideas.” I wonder if we would have a brand comparative to Disney if we hadn’t enforced these types of laws. Do you think we are holding back brilliance like Disney?

When sneaky monobrow pics go wrong

A public place “includes any highway and any other premises or place to which, at the material time, the public have or are permitted to have access”. A private place is “a place that is exclusively used by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose”. Whilst I agree with these definitions I think they’re very basic. The nature of public and private spaces has changed due to advancements in technology. The best example I can think of to demonstrate this is the image below.

How many of you can say you haven’t taken a picture of a stranger without them knowing? Maybe you don’t want to admit it because it’s unethical or frowned upon. I will put my hand up and say that I have on occasion taken a sneaky photo of something amusing. I stealthily turn my sound off and turn off the flash – something the above person clearly forgot to do!

There is now even an iPhone app called “Sneaky Pics” to assist you in taking sneaky photos of strangers without them knowing. You don’t need to press the shutter button to take a photo and there is no shutter noise. A picture is automatically taken when you put your phone against something. It does this by using the proximity sensor. The idea is you pretend you’re on the phone and as the phone hits your ear the app will automatically take a photo. Reflecting on the “Sneaky Pics” app I now wonder if it is thought of to be an acceptable practice nowadays since there are apps made for this behaviour in public places. This app wouldn’t have been made if there was not a market for it. I believe the nature of a public space has blurred with the characteristics of a private space as a result of this sort of mobile technology.

Even though I am guilty of it I don’t think it is ethical to take photos of someone without their permission or consent. In some cases it can result in a fine or imprisonment. The Summary Offenses Act outlines circumstances when a person’s privacy must be respected. The Act says consent is needed when taking a photo of a private activity. The examples given were using the toilet, bathing or engaging in sexual activity. I’m not saying that it is ethical to take a photo of a man on a bus with a monobrow but I think there is a line and taking photos of someone engaging in the aforementioned activities is definitely crossing it. What do you think about taking photos of strangers in public without their permission?

A medium popcorn please

This week’s homework was to go to the movies…hmm I think I can manage that! In fact I managed to smash my homework on the first day it was given. I was told to think about urban planner Torsten Hagerstrand who identified three human constraints that changed the way social planning works whilst at my trip to the movies.

Hagerstrand’s three human constraints:

– Capability: can I get there?

– Coupling: can I get there at the right time?

– Authority: am I allowed to be there?

In terms of capability and coupling it was easy as I took a friend from my class and did a quick ten-minute drive after uni and we were there. We were early so we ran across the road to Woolworths to buy some snacks quickly to avoid the overpriced snack bar at the cinema but as I bought my ticket the popcorn just smelt too good so I bought a medium popcorn as well. Whilst buying my ticket I reached the authority human constraint when the worker asked me for my identification to check my age. I was allowed to be there as I am twenty and the movie was rated MA 15+ so there was no authority constraint.

I’m now in the cinema and I’ve sat down in the same seat I always sit in. I sit in the middle seat in the middle row. If anyone manages to get that seat first I’m always very upset but I was able to score it today. This may have been because the entire theatre only contained nine people but I still felt very satisfied with myself for getting my favourite seat. As I sat down and saw the six strangers that had not come with my friend and I, I wondered why the cinema was so empty. Sure it was a Monday night but to only share the cinema with six other strangers seems quite absurd.

Apparently I’m not the only one pondering on this idea as I found many articles online about the decrease in cinema visits like this one. Almost every article I looked at said the advancements in technology are accountable for the decrease in cinema visits. Put more simply the accessibility of illegal downloading has destroyed any motivation to travel to the cinema to pay for something that can be illegally watched for free in the comfort of their own home.

Whilst I think going to the cinema does have a certain exciting feeling unfortunately I believe cinemas will eventually decease. In the next 5-10 years I expect a drastic decline in cinemas and a boost in the illegal downloads industry.