In relation to one of the first posts of this blog ‘A Critical Response To Sharing on the Internet’ I have come across an article by Time Magazine which I think you will all be interested in reading.

The author states that from a new study shows that 45% of employers ‘screen’ interviewees on their social networking profiles before offering them jobs.

Time Magazine Article

Privacy invasion? Wouldn’t we all do the same? 

Advertisements

After lecture seven, the idea of ‘citizen journalism’ (CJ) has been playing on my mind. 

In ‘Citizen Journalism: New Media, An Introduction by Terry Flew he looks at different definitions of CJ: –

‘Every citizen is a reporter’ (pp 143)

and

‘Participatory Journalism: the act of a citizen or group of citizens playng an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysisng and disseminating news and information.’ (pg 144)

The rise of the ‘prod-user’; both the consumer and the producer of new media it is understandable that the idea of citizen reporting has been developed. With access to new media and constant streams of information regular people want to contribute their opinions (not necessarily facts) in to the open. With a new platform to debate and contribute to, individuals can share their information with the world, their counterparts that choose to read, watch or listen to their ‘journalism’ are varied and equally as keen to share.

My conundrum with CJ is that I don’t believe it is journalism. The majority of people contributing their ideas and beliefs have not had any journalistic training or have any background with media. They are literally just inflicting their opinions upon the world. Whilst I believe that blogs etc are a fantastic source of entertainment and information I do not believe they are  journalism unless the person behind the writing has some form of journalistic credentials. Journalism is about the facts, hard hitting stories, locally-based information and I find that blogs tend more to be about the opinions of the author and their likes and dislikes rather than giving an impartial account of the facts- what journalism should be.

After searching the Internet for entertaining images or videos about CJ I came across the image below, courtesy of ‘Andrea’s Blog’.

Lets continue to be prod-users and not citizen journalists– leave the major stories to the professionals, and continue to provide the world with entertainment, information and opinions without trying to pass ourselves off as ‘journalists’.

Reference List

Flew, T., 2008. Citizen Journalism. New Media: An Introduction, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp 143-167

Andrea’s Blog, Available at: http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~s3166055/blog2/?p=10, Accessed on 01/06/11


Question Posed:

Burgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Reader, page 269).

Discuss the argument by giving an example of a YouTube video.

Celebrity defined:

1– A famous person: a show business personality

2– Fame or Notoriety

In the case of this argument from Burgess and Green they suggest that if an ordinary person were to become a celebrity then they would have to focus on developing a career in the mass media, moving from one media platform to another, i.e. YouTube to television.

I do agree with this statement to a certain extent and will discuss this with reference to perhaps the most famous YouTube sensation of all, Justin Bieber. From the age of 11 Bieber posted his homemade videos of his singing online and aged 14 was signed to a label with R&B singer Usher. Bieber was immediately thrown from one media platform into another, centre stage to be exact. He was a phenomenon.

Justin Bieber You Tube Clip: 

As Burgess and Green claim, mass media creates a mass audience which is necessary to be successful in the music industry- Bieber needed to showcase his talents to the masses. This increased awareness of him and his talent, eventually propelling him to stardom. YouTube was the starting point for his celebrity status, he now has over 10 million followers on Twitter and his debut single ‘Baby’ is the most watched video on YouTube EVER.

However one starlet from YouTube who has opposes Burgess and Green’s claims is Lauren Luke.

Lauren Luke is an ordinary woman from North East England who posted make-up tutorials in ten-minute videos on YouTube. Although she has now moved to different media platforms, these are not necessarily catered for a mass audience, she has appeared on TV shows and has her own website: http://www.laurenluke.com.

Lauren Luke YouTube Clip: 

She contradicts Burgess and Greens suggestion of how once established you need to continue to use mass media to remain famous. Her audience is very specific and select, as Livingstone suggested in ‘The Challenge of Changing Audiences (pp 76-77)’ communication is:

‘…no longer simply or even mainly mass communication (from one to many), but rather the media now facilitate communication among peers (one to one and many to many)’.

Instead of catering for a mass audience Lauren Luke relies on her ability to appear as though she is talking to you alone, through a step by step guide, individuals will search out her tutorials rather than watching them on TV or hearing her on the radio.

So although in some respects, what Burgess and Green state is entirely true,  the outcome of your success actually depends on the manner of your creativity and what is posted on YouTube initially, people who target a niche do not necessarily need the mass media to remain in the ‘system’.

Reference List

– Burgess, J and Green J., 2009. YouTube and the Mainstream Media. Youtube Culture and Participatory Culture. Cambridge Polity Press, pp 15-37

– Dictionary Online Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/celebrity Accessed on 30/05/11

– Justin Bieber YouTube Clip 1. Avaliable at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJWZSEkCrAM

– Justin Bieber YouTbe Clip 2. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQOFRZ1wNLw&feature=relmfu

– Katy Couric Justine Bieber Interview.  Available at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEO8uQREjXQ Accessed on 30/05/11

– Lauren Luke Online (2011) Available at: http://www.laurenluke.com/ Accessed on 30/05/11

– Lauren Luke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6QH4AKhOFk

– Livingstone, S., 2004. The Challenge of Changing Audiences. European Journal Communication 19, 1 pp 75-86



The iGeneration is described as ‘tech-savvy kids who want to be constantly connected’, ‘its in their DNA’ (Jayson, 2010). New Media allows us, the iGeneration and other Internet literate generations- X, Y and Z to decide for themselves what is worthwhile.

 With hundreds of blogs, web pages and information avenues consumers can now find information tailored to suit their individual tastes. Livingstone states that ‘’people increasingly engage with content more than forms or channels’’. New Media allows access points globally, no longer do we have to sift through irrelevant news or information when in order to get what we want we can just ‘Google it’.

The video in the next post is a parody of Michael Jacksons ‘Beat It’ I came across on YouTube- another brand from Google- suggesting exactly how varied searches can be on Google.

New Media technologies give us, the user and the producer, access to everything and anything we could possible imagine. Although with the development of New Media comes the suggesting of the demise of the mass audience, by creating information we can tailor for our own opinions, likes and dislikes the mass audience will be soon become irrelevant. Livingstone suggests that audiences who ‘enjoy the action of viewing now converge with reading, shopping, voting, playing, researching and chatting’- we don’t all watch the same programs anymore.

Audiences have changed and will never be the same again.

Reference List

– Anon., 2006. ‘Among the Audience’. USA TODAY Online. Available at http://www.economist.com/node/6794156 Accessed on 30th May 2011.

– Jayson, S., 2010. ‘Tech-savvy ‘iGeneration’ kids multi-task, connect.’ USA TODAY Online Available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-10-igeneration10_CV_N.htm Accessed on 30th May 2011.

– Livingstone, S., 2004. The Challenge of Changing Audiences. European Journal of Communication, 19, 1 pp. 75-86


Question Posed:

Following week 10 tutorial’s exercise, explain why you chose the Creative Commons license that you added to your blog and discuss the relevance (or not) of adding the license.

After looking at the varying licenses, three licenses jumped out at me:

1) Attribution Non-Commercial

2) Attribution No Derivatives

3) Share-alike

I chose to use the share-alike license on my work, I think original work should remain intact but I want others to have access to it and to make some changes if they wish.

I chose not to use licenses one and two because I would like my work to be shared commercially, but I do want to changes to be easily made.

If I chose to share my work commercially then I can arrange that individually and for profit.


Question Posed:

Lovink (Reader, page 219) argues that bloggers are creative nihilists “who celebrate the death of centralized meaning structures and ignore the accusation that they would only produce noise”.

Nihilism is defined as:

1.

total rejection of established laws and institutions.

2.

anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.

3.

total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler’s last years.

Lovink’s argument is extremely general. He suggests that each individual blogger ‘opposes laws and institutions’ and that blogs in fact are ‘noise’; created by individuals that don’t care for the world and society in which we live.

Is Lovink suggesting that the author of ‘Orangette’ a food based blogs, named as the number one food blog by Times Online, a nihilist? Surely not. Is he suggesting that the author of  ‘Le Love Image’, a romance and love themed space, a person who is against the destruction of society? A terrorist in the extreme? Of course not.

I think what Lovink is suggesting, is that there are blogs on the Internet that don’t form an opinion or share facts but indeed are there to express a rant, a form of ‘noise’, something that blends into the background when you do find something you truly connect with. Hazel Blears agrees with Lovink to a certain degree, she writes:

But mostly, political blogs are written by people with a disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.’

 The article suggests the awareness of blogs that are written purely to create scandal but she also acknowledges that ‘There are some informative and entertaining political blogs’. This is the crux of the argument, with the bad come the good and to be part of the ‘blogosphere’ we have to accept this, perhaps for every 10 blogs we read, only two will be the perfect combination or opinion, fact and humour.

 It can be argued that if blogs are nihilistic, there are certain aspects of print media that also are. If bloggers are nihilistic, are they allowed the same rights as journalists who intend to disrupt society and go against structure? Julian Assange; founder of Wikileaks, chose to show the public information that went against the governments and global society, but he has just been listed on the Times Magazine Top 100. Bloggers do make an impression and their information can be crucial in providing information to the general public.

 A blogger in Virginia won the right to allow comments on his blog to remain anonymous, just as a journalist would. Society is changing and as the acceptance of blogs as journalism grows, the theory of bloggers being nihilistic will also be proven incorrectly.

In a society where ‘citizen journalism’ (Flew, 2008) is the norm and ‘journalism’ or freedom of speech is seen as a human right, surely blogs are not nihilistic but could be seen as narcissistic. A place where we are able to share information about our lives, our opinions and perhaps give information that is detrimental towards ‘central meaning structures’ and rather than being seen as someone who doesn’t uphold traditions and values- or someone who may disagree with a political/social movement, but someone who is using their basic human right to express what they think and feel.

Reference List

–  Blears, H., 2008. ‘ Blogging Politics’ Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/05/blogging-politics Accessed on 26th April 2011

–  Flew, T., 2008. ‘Citizen Journalism’, in New Media: An Introduction, Melbourne: Oxford University press, pp 106-116

–  Le Love Blog., 2011. Available at: http://leloveimage.blogspot.com/

 Accessed on: April 26th 2011

– Public Citizen., 2011. Available at http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issuesredirect.cfm?ID=2177 Accessed on April 26th 2011

– Orangette Blog., 2011. Available at: http://www.orangette.blogspot.com/

 Accessed on April 26th 2011

– Robinson, L., 2009. ‘50 of the Worlds best food blogs’ The Times Online Available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article5561425.ece Accessed on April 26th 2011

– ‘Should Bloggers have the same rights as Journalists’ Available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0319324022.shtml Accessed on April 26th 2011

–  Times Magazine., 2011. ‘The Times Top 100 List’, Times Magazine Online Available at: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2066367,00.htmlAccessed on April 26th 2011