Since this week’s assignment is focused on gaming, I read an additional section of Lister, et al. (2008) that was not specifically assigned for the course (pp. 286-307). Here the authors discuss a variety of concepts related to gaming, including instrumental play, programming, hacking, interactivity, identity, and special and temporal qualities. What surprised me was the scant attention Lister, et al. (2008) give to learning. The authors devote just two paragraphs of this section to explicit discussion of gaming’s potential to encourage learning (p. 302), though the possible educational benefits of gaming are woven implicitly throughout the entire section. For instance, Lister, et al. (2008) discuss Julian Sefton-Green’s study of his son’s Pokemon play habits. The significance Lister, et al. (2008) attach to the study relates to the insights it offers into “computer games as distinct media forms and their play as distinct cultural practices” (p. 293). However, the authors describe how the six-year-old’s “Gameboy sessions alternated with intense periods of study, poring over Pokemon magazines, rehearsing plots and remembering cues. He learned all the maps within the Pokemon world and the locations of secret keys and potions” (p. 293). The boy also received tips and clues from other players. It occurred to me that these descriptions of the child’s activities reflect concepts learned in another SUNY IT class (IDT541), including cognitive psychology principles like perception and attention, memory, active learning, and motivation. The case study also demonstrates the use of collaborative learning, and thinking skills like remembering, understanding, applying, and analyzing. Although Lister, et al. (2008) do not emphasize the educational potential of computer games, their discussion does imply that computer and video games may not be the time-wasting digital bogeymen their critics make them out to be.
Posted in Uncategorized October 21, 2009
In this week’s reading I found Rettberg’s (2008) mention of Xanadu particularly intriguing. I was not previously aware of Nelson or his early network concept, so I decided to do a quick search. I came up with a couple of resources. The mission statement at http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_64.html underscores the utopian vision behind the project. Rettberg (2008) seemed to imply that the Xanadu project is defunct, but this site http://www.xanadu.net/ leads me to believe otherwise. Can anybody shed any light on this?
I’m also intrigued by Xanadu’s goal to provide “frictionless re-use of copyrighted material.” As Rettberg (2008) notes, this was a provision that was not included in the Web as it developed. To some extent, Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ has attempted to address this issue by providing a forum for voluntary sharing of copyrighted materials for non-commercial re-use. As an occasional producer of historical documentaries for public radio (with a very limited budget), I appreciate Creative Commons initiative because securing rights to archival materials can be cost prohibitive. Further, it has been suggested that the prevalence of unauthorized use of copyrighted material on the Web may undermine net neutrality, since such practices might motivate regulatory efforts (Bernard & Rabin, 2008). Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig offers insights into the relationship between copyright law and the Web at his blog: http://www.lessig.org/
Posted in Uncategorized October 13, 2009
Rettberg (2008) notes that bloggers, because of their immediacy and lack of objectivity, often convey to the public a sense of authenticity different from that provided by mainstream media accounts. “The traditional journalistic creeds of credibility and fact-checking [are] of no relevance to them” (p. 101). Does this not undermine their value as “journalists” and make them more useful as sources for mainstream media? Rettberg continues to discuss how mainstream media used Salam Pax and a Virginia Tech blogger in precisely this way. Further, quoting Lovink (2007), she notes that often “‘blogs are the servants of mainstream media, simply providing a more nuanced form of audience survey at no cost to the media’” (p. 109). If bloggers truly wish to provide an alternative form of journalism, wouldn’t they—perhaps ironically—be better served by adhering to the standards and practices of “professional” journalists? Are bloggers journalists or sources?
Posted in Uncategorized October 7, 2009
Salter (2006) writes at length about official attempts at “information repression” and “state coercion.” One example provided is the U.S. seizure of “Al Jazeera Arabic language web servers in September 2001” and the subsequent disabling of Al Jazeera’s English language servers. Salter notes that this account does not encompass action against Al Jazeera’s television capabilities. However, this seems an inappropriate example of oppressive “information repression.” In wartime, an immediate military necessity is the disabling of an enemy’s ability to communicate. We have been repeatedly reminded of the unconventional nature of the “war on terror,” in that the enemy is not a clearly defined entity or recognized nation. The United States was not at war with Al Jazeera, but if Al Jazeera is recognized as the mouthpiece of an elusive enemy, it stands to reason that the U.S. would be expected to attempt to hamper its operations. Therefore (discounting questions of the morality of warfare generally), this does not seem to be an example of sinister “information repression,” but an issue of military imperatives.
Posted in Uncategorized October 5, 2009
This week’s assigned readings caused to me reflect a little further on the questions about e-research pondered last week. The team assembled by Kluver, et al. investigated the role of the internet in the national elections of 2004-2005. The fact that such an inquiry constitutes and demands a form of e-research is obvious. But more important is the global comparative nature of their study. Utilizing e-research tools and methods (including the analytical tools developed by Schneider & Foot), participating scholars were presumably able to overcome the restrictions of geographic separation to correspond and collect and compile data and conclusions much more efficiently than would have been the case if they’d had to rely on traditional methods. The speed and convenience allowed by such internet-enabled communication also suggests the utility of online academic publishing as discussed by Jankowski (2008). By the time The Internet and National Elections was published in 2007, much had changed in the realm of online politics, including the proliferation of social network sites and users. Schneider, et al. acknowledge this in the book’s epilogue. As Eric Goodnough pointed out in a class discussion post earlier this week, social media was much more conspicuous in 2008 U.S. presidential election. Online academic publishing might allow scholars to demonstrate their findings more quickly than through print journals or books. This would be especially beneficial for studies of rapidly changing technologies.
Posted in Uncategorized October 1, 2009
And another item from The New York Times (9/22/09):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
I think this clearly demonstrates tensions associated with the commercialization of the Web and the way in which evolving Web-based advertising practices are challenging traditional corporate capitalism. And in this case, winning. One line in particular caught my eye:
“The adviser, Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro, known as an advocate general, said that on the Internet, brand owners ‘do not have an absolute right of control over the use of their trademarks.’” (Italics are mine.)
This statement implies an important distinction in how trademark law is interpreted in the context of “new media,” as opposed to the way it has been conventionally applied to “old media.” I don’t know if similar suits have already been filed in other countries. If not, it will be interesting to see if the European Court of Justice decision is tested elsewhere.
Posted in Uncategorized September 23, 2009
From the New York Times, 9/21/09:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/microbloggers-meet-the-microvideo/?ref=technology
A couple of passages caught my eye in terms of this application’s potential implications for construction of online identity and community:
“The idea behind the platform is simple: In addition to the microvideos, which can be uploaded from a webcam or a mobile phone camera and pushed out via Facebook and Twitter with a few short lines of text, Robo.to is meant to be a digital calling card online or a hub that houses information about an individual’s identity on the Web.” (Italics are mine.)
“[T]he company is unveiling a new feature Monday called “TV Mode” that will allow users to watch all the videos associated with a particular keyword or hashtag. Mr. Flemings described it as a Twitter search, or Twitter’s trending topics, but with microvideos. He hopes that it will help users ‘watch the conversation unfold in a new way.’” (Italics are mine.)
Also, Lister, et al. (2009) contend that there is a “triangulation” of “human creativity, technological affordance and economic advantage [that] each contribute to shaping our own individual networked media experiences ….” (p. 231). I think Robo.to (as described in the Times article) demonstrates all three components. But the article also made me wonder if there is more at work here than a “triangulation” of determinants. For instance, what role does dominant culture itself play? In this case, I mean our alleged celebrity obsession. As the Times notes:
“It doesn’t hurt that pop singer Justin Timberlake, one of the lead investors in the company, is also active on the site, posting multiple video updates daily.”
Posted in Uncategorized September 23, 2009
From the New York Times, 9/18/09. For those interested in the increasing commercialization of the web:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/technology/internet/18exchange.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Posted in Uncategorized September 18, 2009
A couple of thoughts that I did not address in the formal assignment for this week:
Both of this week’s assigned readings mention potentially utopian effects of online communities. Jankowski (2007) notes that “both pundits and academics muse about regaining ‘lost’ community through Internet-based constructions ….” (p. 2). Lister, et al. (2009) introduce “the idea of the online community as an antidote to the social fragmentation of contemporary life …. “ (p. 213). However, the authors do not cite any empirical research to prove the validity of such “‘loss’” and fragmentation (perhaps that is beyond the scope of their discussions). I’m sure that studies indicating the existence of contemporary community or social disconnection have been done, but it also seems that the concept is one with which other generations have been concerned. Perhaps it is common to every generation. The “media as social panacea” idea is not a new one. For instance, particularly during the Great Depression, radio was often touted for its unifying strengths and its potential for restoration of a lost sense of community. (See Michelle Hilmes, Radio Voices, 1997; Michelle Hilmes and Jason Loviglio, Radio Reader, 2002; Alice Goldfarb Marquis, “Written on the Wind,” 1984; and others.) I suppose that determining whether or not any media can truly have such an effect is one of the objects of new media studies, and the similarity between radio and online communications certainly reinforces Lister, et al.’s assertions about “remediation.”
I found Lister, et al.’s discussion of “participatory culture” interesting, particularly their overview of Poster’s “new Public Sphere” arguments, although I’m somewhat doubtful about his assertion that “‘the salient characteristics of Internet community is the diminution in prevailing hierarchies of race, class, age, status and especially gender’” (Poster, quoted in Lister, et al., 2009, p. 220).
Finally, Lister et al. (2009) state that “as media have become more and more ubiquitous through various forms of wireless communication this integration of mediation and everyday life has become even more pronounced” (p. 217). Jankowski notes that “an increasing number of people consider engagement in online communities as part and parcel of their everyday lives” (p. 18). I wonder if this could be seen as a validation of McLuhan’s theory, as distilled by Lister, et al. (2007): “[Media] subtly alter everything, so that now all human actions take place in a technologically saturated environment that has become the natural world, never rising above the threshold of perception” (p. 93).
Posted in Uncategorized September 17, 2009
As a student of history, I found this week’s readings particularly interesting. For instance, Lister, et al. provide what is essentially a historiography; that is, a comparative history of new media history. This served as a reminder that the study of history has a history. Over time, certain historical theories and methodologies have come into, and gone out of, vogue. In their dismissal of “teleological” histories, Lister, et al. reflect a common trend in the history profession away from analyses that focus on “single, linear historical narrative[s]” in favor of inquiries that incorporate “a large number of intersecting histories,” and that seek and examine “differences” and “complex connections” (p. 52). Their brief discussion of Foucault resurrected somewhat unpleasant memories of very difficult reading (one of my former professors termed Foucault “every history grad student’s bogeyman”), but upon reflection, Foucault’s genealogical theory isn’t that difficult to grasp. It is the scope of the analyses that result from his theories that is hard to fathom. At the risk of drastic oversimplification, one might distill the concept into the phrase: things happen for more than one reason, and it is always more complicated than it first appears. Hence the current trend toward interdisciplinary historical analysis that incorporates any combination of elements of sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, ethnography, science and technology, and more. Foucault’s ideas inform much of professional historical research today. It is interesting that the progression and development of historical theories parallel what Lister et al. argue to be the most valid method for analyzing the progression and development of new media: the “‘Foucauldian’ perspective,’” examination of “remediation,” “affiliations,” and “resonances” (p. 58-59). They argue that new media technologies are built upon old media foundations and are “in touch and negotiating with the long traditions of process, purpose, and signification that older media possess” (p. 48). Similarly, although Foucault did not study new media (he did seminal work in the history of sexuality, among other things), in his work he borrowed from and expanded upon the ideas of the philosopher Nietzsche, and later new media theorists (and other historians) borrowed from and expanded upon the ideas of Foucault. This sort of interdisciplinary borrowing is also reflected in Silver’s discussion of the current academic state of new media studies.
Posted in Uncategorized September 8, 2009
Previous Posts
