Although this assignment officially finished two days ago, I did not get a chance to read all of my classmates final blog posts until now and felt the urge to post just one more. After an incredible four years here at Laurier, this assignment was definitely one that stood out as an excellent teaching tool. Not only did I get to put theory into practice, but I was able to do so within a circle of classmates who were doing the very same thing. So on that note, I wanted to thank you, my classmates and fellow bloggers for every post you posted. Each one enlightened me in a different way and thru your thoughts, I was able to explore more of my own. I wish you each the best of luck in the future, I know you'll all do something fabulous. And for those of you who feel uncertain about the future of a Comm student, or how serious someone considers the issues we've studied, just consider the advantage we all have now having studied something we know is imperative! Hopefully it won't take others too long to catch on...
For me, my next steps are still to be determined, but I do know that blogging is something I plan to continue. It might be on this blog, or I'll establish another. Reminds me of our lecture that discussed what happens (or doesn't happen) to old Internet pages and profiles. But Adios for now my amigos, and I hope you all make headlines for doing amazing things!
For our CS400H final project, one of my classmates Jill created this great online magazine 'The Revolution Will Be Digital'. I really like how she included a Letter from the Editor, where she states how she feels about print vs. digital texts. It demonstrates an important aspect of citizen media, where it is normal and somewhat expected that the author disclose his/her bias. I also like the different graphics and fonts, especially the magazine cover. My only question/critique is regarding the "master plan" font and if it is supposed to be spaced awkwardly. It could be that it shows up differently on my mac than intended, or perhaps it's supposed to be like that for effect.
The articles are well written and I think you did a great job, Jill!
For the final project of my 4th year Communications course entitled Citizen Media and the Public Sphere (the course I was required to write this blog for), I was asked to engage in a citizen media project. I chose to make a YouTube response to the Vancouver Olympics that outlined the actuality of all the Winter Olympic spending. The importance of putting this spending into context is outlined in the remix of clips. The links to the clips I used are at the end of the video.
The creation of this video illustrates the concept that citizen media (like YouTube) can provide an alternative view to mainstream, hegemonic news. As well, it illustrates that the concept of remixing other texts (in this case, YouTube clips) is an effective way to create a new idea built upon other works.
This is the first time I've created something like this, so any and all constructive criticism is encouraged! Feel free to say things like "the clip from _:_ to _:_ is too long", "blank doesn't flow", or whatever you'd like. For the report part of this project, I need to include some feedback I receive, so please comment, rate and share it with your friends. The video is too wide for this post, so feel free to open it in its own browser to view it in proper form.
As some of you know, a SeaWorld trainer was killed recently when she was pulled underwater into a whale tank by a whale that had a past history of violence. With the other trainers unable to save her, Dawn Brancheau was thrashed around until she drowned. Since many spectators observed this shocking event (it took place during a live show), it is surprising that no horrific stringer footage surfaced on YouTube, as footage usually does when something shocking and outrageous occurs. SeaWorld does have two surveillance cameras that captured parts of her death, one on top a tall tower overlooking the tank deck, and another underwater camera. Now with the help of SeaWorld, Dawn Brancheau’s family will be one step closer to preventing the release of that footage.
It is known that people were and still are curious to see how this awful event happened, as they usually are when a bizarre and/or public death occurs (similar to how Marissa blogged about the Olympic luger’s death footage). I wonder why people feel the actual NEED to see footage of one’s death, especially if it can be effectively described in another, less graphic way. The family of the late trainer does not want the public to be able to see the footage of their loved one’s death become a exploited commodity, so now with the help of SeaWorld’s lawyers and money they will hopefully be one step closer to securing that privacy. They also argue that the footage does not provide any other helpful evidence as to why this happened or what can be done, because of what the footage did not capture.
"The underwater view does not show Mrs. Brancheau until after she had entered the water. The overhead camera was not aimed at the scene until after the incident had begun," the complaint states.
"Significantly neither camera shows what occurred in the moments prior to and including Mrs. Brancheau being pulled into the water and offer no insight into the cause of this tragic event."
Although the family has valid points regarding the video's lack of evidential ability, the Brancheau family and SeaWorld are fighting against First Amendment Rights and Florida Access Laws. According to the Freedom of Information Act, law enforcement files are public property in Florida. Since the footage was released to Florida police to investigate this case, media has a strong argument as to why they should have access to the footage, now that the case is closed.
If mainstream media gets hold of the footage, do you think they’ll show it? Or do you think they’ll respect the family’s wishes of not showing this unfortunate event? Do you think SeaWorld and the Brancheau family should have the rights to the footage or should the media have full access and decide for themselves if they’ll air it?
UPDATE April, 2010:
Footage was aired on CBC. Now easily accessible on YouTube.
On February 15th, 2010, UK radio personality Tim Shaw decided to lock himself in a steel box too small for him to even stand in for 30 days and broadcast it live to the world online. With help from daily clues and Tim’s discussions of his past, it is up to the online viewers to figure out his location and find him. And this is all for an incredible prize of €30,000!! (With all proceeds gained from the stunt being donated to Help for Heroes, a charity that helps wounded UK soldiers). I have been occasionally checking back to this man every few days (who I now deem insane) as he waits to be found, which would release him from his confinement prior to the 30 day mark. His production team also set up a Twitter account for the contest which they post status updates from about clever, funny, or crazy things they says along with rating his mood.
Tim is given food once a day through a small hatch (which is also when they collect his “waste”), and is also given random objects that could either help keep him from getting depressed or going crazy, or make him annoyed and go further insane. He talks about missing his wife, his kids, information about his past flings and the crazy situations he’s gotten himself into. But most importantly he talks about the past places he’s been in hopes that one of the 500,000 or so people that have viewed him in isolation would figure out where he was and release him. There are about 2,000 viewers on at the average time, give or take, and a total of 551,235 total views (as of March 12th, 3:30pm). You would think that by now (day 26 of his confinement), and with Tim figuring out he is at some form of WWII site or museum in the UK, someone would have figured out his location to win the €30,000 and some fame. But they haven’t. And Tim continues to get skinnier and skinnier legs (from being unable to stand), which is what I notice the most. He sleeps more and more of the day and the ‘mood meter’ on his Twitter feed has been steadily decreasing.
By last week, I couldn’t help but notice and be slightly bothered by the fact that he hasn’t been located. Last week was when he narrowed down his location to a specific enough description that even made me - someone very far from his location who had not been following close since the beginning - consider searching online for different places he could possibly be. Yet I haven’t looked, and apparently other people aren’t trying very hard either. This relates to one of our course readings, which raises point about the lack of actual social action executed by those in participatory culture.
“The majority of young people are convinced that supporting a social cause is something they should do. However, there is a strong disparity between interest and involvement, an ‘activation gap,’ and there is significant room for growth.” (Rheingold 98).
I guess a lot of people are enjoying watching this guy suffer and learning a bit of geography, but no one really cares enough to find him, win money and support the Heroes charity. Or maybe people really are trying and just haven’t figured it out? All I know is that although watching this guy in isolation is pretty painful, I still find myself drawn back to the live stream to see if he’ll do or say something nutso. Or to see if he’s been found, of course! Would you look for Man in Box for €30,000? Do you think he’ll be found before the 30 day mark is up?
I previously blogged before about the concept of negotiating an online identity for yourself and yesterday in class we were lectured on the concept some more. Our discussion led us to think about the way a person communicates their identity in the physical world, versus online. In the physical world (“rl” or real life), we assume that the way one presents him or herself is an accurate representation of who they really are. We take cues from clothing, hairstyle, the way they walk, and more. In the context of MMORPG (mass multiplayer online role playing games like Runescape or World of Warcraft), the same cues cannot be used. People of all ages and of all descents come together online for a common goal – usually to advance the user’s account in one way or another. There are many users addicted to these kinds of games, spending countless hours online and growing friendships with others who do the same. But your physical body is missing in the online world – how are you supposed to determine the kind of person you’re talking? In the case of MMORPGs, how are you supposed to trust the people you're spending countless hours and energy with, advancing your accounts? According to Prof. Boutros, you generally use conversations to determine one’s identity online, taking cues from the way the other users speak about things. But again, how are we supposed to trust that the person we are conversing with is actually who they claim to be? For example, I am blogging under the pseudonym Alexis Woods, but that is not my real name. And I could perhaps create a different character for myself as the author of this blog, but you might not realize.
There’s always a person behind that computer screen, so how do you get to know that person? How do you come to trust their character when you only interact within the so-called virtual community? And do you even need to get to know them? These are all questions posed by scholars of the “virtual identity”. I found that this blogger defines a virtual (or digital) identity very well – as being,
“the online representation of an individual within a community, as adopted by that individual and/or projected by others. An individual may have multiple digital identities in multiple communities”
Without you realizing it, users like you and I have been negotiating our virtual identities for some time now. Doing things like photoshopping the pictures we post on Facebook, editing the comments that are posted on those pictures, and even being an active user of a certain website (obviously, Facebook in this example) are ways that a person can represent oneself. Some people restrict certain aspects of themselves from being shown online. Perhaps if you have a prosthetic limb and choose not to have it photographed, or you pose in the way that it would not get noticed – that person then communicates him or herself as someone that has four functioning limbs.
This made me think - how is this different from people who lead so-called “double lives” in reality or historically? Classic examples like Superman can be used, or an extreme example like a mother who works a second job as a nightwalker, but none of her friends and family know. What are the consequences of misrepresenting yourself in reality and are they different than editing your virtual identity?
There are many ways to grow trust online – bloggers use verifiable facts, eBay users have buyer/seller feedback ratings, MMORPG users join guilds and spend time working toward certain tasks with guild members, or you can merely grow to trust someone by conversing with them regularly. Once individuals figure out what they want to get out of their experience in the virtual community, they can determine the cues they need to look for in order to determine the identity of who they’re conversing with.
I read an article for another class by Chris Gray entitled “Sex Machines, Human Beings, In-Betweens” (2002). In this article, the author compares the example of people hiding or manipulating their genders online to the manipulation of gender when undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. This comparison helps create an awareness that for many individuals, gender is one part of their identity that is constructed. Even if you think you are interacting with a male in person, it could very easily be a prior female. The world has advanced to such a level of understanding regarding gender, sexuality and the technological advancements that can alter gender and sexuality, therefor individuals need to realize that bodies can be altered. Specifically, because this gender and body alteration allows a person to renegotiate their identity.
Now one must consider the significance of this gender alteration in the virtual community versus the physical world. I cannot equate the manipulation of one’s online gender to the sexual reassignment surgery of an individual’s physical body, as the author, Chris Gray did. When chatting online, many individuals do not share their personal information and may not give accurate information regarding their sexuality. As well, people playing videos games that interact with others can choose a character that is either male or female to play as. There are no real implications of someone thinking a player is male versus female, since the intention is to win the game. On the contrary, upon meeting someone in person (at a bar for example), there is a good possibility the intention can be to ‘pick them up’. In our current society, there is a large assumption with respect to gender that “what you see is what you get”... perhaps people will need to rethink that idea now.
Shifting back to your online or virtual identity – which aspects about getting to know a person matter? Which don’t? How do you come to trust a person you’re interacting with in the virtual community? And do you need do?
Earlier today in Toronto, a tractor trailer accident caused Highway 401’s Westbound lanes to close for a significant amount of hours. Spilling two trailers worth of materials resulting in a serious clean-up, CP24 and other mainstream news outlets were sure to be on the scene and report the incident. Not surprisingly, many drivers traveling by were also taking footage of the accident and mess, bringing out their cell phones and other electronic devices to either snap a photo or take a video. What these drivers didn’t realize though, was that as they were travelling slowly by the accident filming the scene, the many police officers standing by would notice this and surely do something about it. After all, in Ontario it is now illegal to use a cell phone in any way while driving a car, so this traffic accident became the perfect opportunity for officers to enforce the new law. While being interviewed live by CP24, an officer noticed a man using his cameraphone while driving and swiftly pulled him over. Watch this humorous encounter between mainstream live media and citizen journalism.
Check out the video on the top right of the CP24 site.
Do you think this is merely bad timing on the driver's behalf? Or do you think it could be staged to set an example or precedent for other citizens not to use mobile devices while driving?
As a student participating in the online public sphere, I think it is important to make use of my alternative media channel as I am inspired, but most importantly, when mainstream news outlets report poorly. (Which I guess does inspire me ;). According to Henry Jenkins, alternative media (like YouTube) have an essential place in our contemporary culture when it can challenge the mainstream (as do blogs). In his article titled Nine Propositions Toward a Cultural Theory of YouTube, Jenkins states that on YouTube, “Amateur curators assess value of commercial content and re-present it for various niche communities of consumers”.
In this case, the commercial content I am choosing to highlight is footage of NBC discussing who will be participating in opening ceremonies. In the footage, not only does the reporter confuse Michael J. Fox’s name in place of Terry Fox, but the network even shows a picture of Michael J. Fox after the reporter has spoken about Terry and his mother. No more comments needed here, other than- HOW ON EARTH DO YOU CONFUSE THOSE TWO? You just don't... especially when you are NBC. Thank goodness alternative media caught this mistake, because it needs to be pointed out for the sake of Terry Fox’s memory. I have yet to find an article or any correction from NBC apologizing for this outrageous error. Here’s the clip.
I do want to take this time to link to the foundations related to both Terry Fox and Michael J. Fox. Please check out the Terry Fox Foundation for Cancer Research and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.
With the Superbowl fast approaching, there’s lots of chatter regarding the epic advertisements that are known to make the most of the astronomically expensive commercial airtime they purchased. These commercials are so great that some people tune into the Superbowl JUST for them. Companies are aware of this, and sometimes go overboard in the ad production, resulting in it being banned for some reason or another. It’s interesting to note, though the commercials that do not make it on the air are uploaded and discussed online. The week before the Superbowl, the Internet is packed with information about banned ads and the effectiveness of the advertisement. Remember this one?
Taking into consideration that the ads are banned, they receive an enormous amount of viewing activity thanks to the rise of YouTube. So much attention that it’s been said some companies purposely create commercials with the intention of the being banned. This just shows the power of social media and interestingly enough, Pepsi has figured this out. This is the first year in 23 years that Pepsi is skipping out on paying millions for airtime and opting for another kind of viral marketing campaign. Named “Refresh Everything”, this is how Pepsi plans to use social media to better the world.
“Instead of pouring millions of dollars into a Super Bowl commercial, Pepsi has started a social-media campaign to promote its "Pepsi Refresh" initiative. Pepsi plans to give away $20 million in grant money to fund projects in six categories: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education.”
The following is an ad for the Refresh Everything Project. Nothing makes me happier than seeing a large corporation spend millions on positive initiatives – especially the environment, since human activity is not helping global warming. And really, we know how many people the Superbowl attracts, but spending millions on a 60-second ad compared to this Pepsi Refresh Everything Project seems stupid. Social Media for the Win!
And for the record, I’ve always liked Pepsi products better than Coke.
Having spent most of our class time thus far discussing participatory media with respect to journalism and democracy, I wanted to highlight another amazing way that social media is often used for – posting and sharing personal, user-generated content. Last year, a hilarious and witty YouTube video went viral called the JK Wedding Dance where a very creative bride and groom choreographed a funny dance to replace the traditional wedding procession. Their idea was so clever that even The Office (US) replicated it in the episode Pam and Jim got married. Imagine your wedding video having millions of views, but then being copied by one of the most popular shows on television – talk about a great start to your marriage!
But now another couple has risen to their occasion. Jeff Wong and Erin Martin, a recently engaged couple decided to share their engagement news and send a “Save the Date” message, but in a way that is hysterically representative of the current growing online participatory culture.Using a mash-up of them parodying famous action movie trailers (remixing culture) along with pictures from the last 10 years of their relationship, Jeff and Erin produced a movie trailer-inspired “Save the Date” YouTube video. Check it out.
If you did not notice, the video above is not the YouTube version of the Save the Date. When attempting to access the couple’s viral video on YouTube, the video had been changed to private, meaning the hundred or thousands of citizen media journalists who had already linked to their video to share the love now had defunct videos on their sites. It is presumed that when several mainstream news outlets and online bloggers began featuring the short film, the couple decided they wanted to keep their engagement private from the curious world and changed their YouTube privacy settings. But as we all know about social media, once you click that post button your content is out for the online world to view and in this case, many sites copied Jeff and Erin’s video for future use making the privacy settings on the original YouTube video irrelevant. My last post discussed the threat of not having control over your online identity and this is another situation where that couple now has minimal control over theirs. Fortunately, it’s an incredible idea that will grant them 15 minutes of fame (or if they’re lucky, longer like The Office’s adaptation of ‘JK’s Wedding Dance’). One lesson to keep in mind though – don’t underestimate the power of your creativity. This couple obviously did not expect the vast media attention about the personal clip they created, so be sure when posting your own content that you assume anyone will be able see it.
After being assigned a reading on Web 2.0 by Trebor Scholz, I reflected on the clarifications discussed in the article about the Internet's social progression. Participation from Internet users and the collaboration and sharing of user-submitted content has become wildly popular. Websites like Wikipedia, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook allows users of all sorts to post information about themselves, their interests, share pictures, videos and other online activity. Digital communication has become all about the mixing and consuming of these multiple sources and pieces of information.
Interestingly enough, many of these collaborative website have been active since the mid-90s, and this connectivity and sharing of information IS what Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee intended the Internet be used for initially. Though in the article, Scholz clarified that the term Web 2.0 has only now been coined recently in order to create enthusiasm among potential investors. Because of course, the nature of businesses and marketers has been to collect this collaborated user information as intelligence - ultimately allowing them to further their own business endeavors.
This got me thinking about the way I use participatory media and real-time websites like Twitter. I spent this past summer 2009 experimenting with Twitter.com – mainly following domestic and international news outlets to keep up to date with the world, and some celebrities for entertainment news. Occasionally, I would post a tweet commenting on current events or about something I was doing, but of course was always conscious not to be too detailed in my whereabouts or private life since I knew the information was public. Unfortunately, I didn’t make the connection that these “tweets” would be showing up in search results alongside my name, which made me realize just how unimportant and unnecessary it was to post anything about myself. I proceeded to make my account private, delete my full name from settings and delete the majority of my tweets. Twitter, I told myself, would now only be used for following others and when appropriate, helping spread the message about issues that were important to me. (Just thought I would slip that last link in there about Stem Cell Research).
This leads me to the point of this blog post. As a graduating student (and a generally curious individual), every few months I like to Google my name to see what potential employers would see if they were to look me up before granting me an interview. Recently, I Googled myself again to see if there were any new developments other than the usual embarrassing results like old websites featuring awkward pictures of my friends and I from summer camp. Sure enough, with the increasing popularity of social media websites and their public nature, I saw several results relating to Twitter and the useless Tweets I posted. Though to my dismay, there was so much more.
I found that there are now companies that will take your information from Twitter (or any other public profile you may have) and create ANOTHER online account/profile under your name on their own website like http://thewhuffiebank.org/. (I chose not to link to this site, since I do not support their actions.) So with the Whuffie Website and a few others like it, I now had multiple search results under my name that I did not create or directly consent to (Twitter of course told me this in the fine lines of privacy details). Worse than the taking of information without your direct consent, even if you edit your personal information to be more private or remove content you posted, the information will still remain on the external website as well in Twitter Headquarters’ power. Since I allowed what I posted to be public at one point, I no longer have a way to control that information.
One plus side is the characteristic of real-time web. If some Twitter posts are deleted, once you click on the search result relating to the post, the page will not exist. BUT Google has stepped up to ensure the information remains available for public viewing. When you Google something that no longer exists, there is often a “Catched Link” option available that revokes all benefits of deleting information.
“Google takes a snapshot of each page examined as it crawls the web and caches these as a back-up in case the original page is unavailable. If you click on the "Cached" link, you will see the web page as it looked when we indexed it.”
So this means that even though the web page or information does not exist anymore, you can still view what it looked like before it was deleted (or at the time when your search terms were relevant). Meaning, any content ever posted can always be retrieved.
Will we ever solely control our online identities again? We may think we have control to remove what we post, but unless we are a big, powerful company or have some sort of elite status, website owners/administrators won’t even be looking at requests to remove your information or delete a fictitious account that was made on your behalf. The issue of privacy and control will only become more pressing as increasing amounts of unsuspecting users upload content for personal use and increasing amounts of businesses find ways to use that content. With live software and real time web applications, one click of a button can take away any control or power you have over the content you just posted, thus your online identity.
It is imperative that Internet users explore all privacy regulations on the websites or technological programs one is making use of, because you never know when your future boss will be looking at the useless photo you posted of you and your dog sunbathing in the backyard or even worse, an online petition you “chose to support” because some company was able to compile enough of your information to convincingly use you.
On a lighter note, hopefully your future boss won't be crazy and judgemental! As long as you don't show any signs of having a poor work ethic or a "bad-ttitude"...
This blog was created in my fourth year of university for a required blogging assignment. I was required to use a pseudonym and chose Alexis Woods, although have since decided to keep it that way.
All the posts prior to and including April 2010 were for marks!
