More than gaining any insight from the readings, I was most surprised by the range of affect that each article provided.  There is a faint sense of dread in the Marshall chapters.  I don’t think you can quote Foucault without infecting whatever you are writing with small bit of existential doom.  Shirky, on the other hand was refreshing.  His article on the creative and productive potential of new media did not have the wide-eyed naivete that make many pro-media writings seem trite.

After reading the Anderson article, I had to wonder if participation by algorithm is fundamentally different than direct participation since it is user participation that generates the results of the algorithms in the first place.  Ultimately, Anderson, like Marshall leads me to ask, what’s the big deal?  What do they seem so afraid of?

Blank and Reisdorf seemed to have a skewed perspective.  While briefly acknowledging that maybe some people just don’t need Web 2.0, they were much more instant that people who did not use Web 2.0 are some kind of luddites.  But I also thought their claim to do what other authors have failed to do was a bit pretentious, not to mention disappointing when I actually read their definition of Web 2.0.

Over the years, the use of the web has gone from strictly research purposes, it has now expanded to serve purposes as entrertainment and networking. In the Correa and Jeong piece, we were given insight on different races, and their reasonings for using the web.  While White students surveyed slightly mentioned keeping in touch with family, minority groups stated that they heavily used the web for these purposes. In contrast, White students surveyed were more likely to use the web as a means of displaying their work and ideas, or self-promotion, as it was described in the reading. Also, minority groups appeared more likely to use the web to connect with niche communities, or ommunities in which there are shares interests.

Banks and Humphries go into discussion about co-creation, which is something that we touched on earlier this semester. Co-created material on the web is a good way to generate additional fan and user participation, by allowing them the opportunity to participate in the production of the material. Such an example was given with Auran Games, a game development company in Australia. The company allowed people from the community to give feedback and input into the Trainz game. Over 200,000 participants joined this online community. As an extra motivating factor, the company promised fans early access to the game. These factors combined allowed for cheap, unpaid labor,  and a way for more ideas and innovative concepts to be included into the project by the consumers who partake in it.

What I found most interesting about the notion of different motives to create content online (as demonstrated in the Jeong and Correa article) is that creativity reveals things in its very inception about what motivated the person to create it. What this article suggests is that race is a factor in determining the motivation. I’m not sure how one could know why that is, other than by maybe looking at the various ideological underpinnings of how race has been interpreted and discussed rhetorically throughout the history of a culture. It would be interesting if the participants in this study were asked questions about their perceptions about their race, how they thought others perceived them, if they feel connected to a larger community of people categorized by race, and what that category or community of people is culturally like—meaning what rituals, expressions, inside jokes, or symbols are recognized by the group.

I find it fascinating to study how new media enables previously disparate people to connect to each other as they seek after (the apparent human drive of) belonging, to connect, be a part of something greater. It never occurred to me that race could underlie a motivating factor or even represent creative differences as in self expression or self promotion. What is also I think at the heart of this study is that which separates races as a result of seclusion. If communities of race form cultural groups that “learn” what it means to be their race (due to ideological orientations), how does one then “learn” what it means to be not a part of someone’s race? Perhaps a study could be done that focuses more on the instances of races such as white that engage in self expression and evaluate participants to see if they were aware that it wasn’t as much of a “white” thing to do. Are creators of online content racially conscious of performing or creating that which is more predominant in communities of other races?

Marshall elaborated the idea of interactivity as the characteristic of new media. Although the term has been abused, the term often implies  group dynamics, collaboration, and influence toward each other. In the context of new media, interactivity relies on the replication of interpersonal dynamics and provides greater connection to others along with a greater sense of control, consequently greater ownership of ideas.

Anderson pointed out an exceptionally intriguing point. Since conventional media contents are often influenced by editors and/or business interests, so-called professional journalism reflecting public opinion may not be relevant anymore. As we can frequently witness, certain media channels’ contents are heavily influenced by political atmosphere and business agenda. So called, “journalistic truth”, might have been the echoes of shouts by media channels with the loudest voice and deeper pocket.

In the midst of such environment, 1) changing audience dynamics refusing to absorb broadcasted contents passively, and 2) new media and internet technologies offering broader access of information, it may not be a coincident to see the rise of public journalism, such as blogs. As Rosen argued, the premise of passive audience is just obsolete, especially when audiences now consume, produce, and share media contents. People no longer absorb and interpret mass-broadcasted contents. The emergence of user-centric media, such as public journalism, Indymedia, and demand media might have been pre-destined.

Shirky also brought up a very intriguing perspective. Formerly, occupied by TV media, we now are experiencing cognitive surplus. Due to widen availabilities of media access, we voluntarily consume, produce, and share contents based on our choices of media channels. Users may create contents motivated by fame, fortune, fun, and fulfillment (Blank & Reisforf 2012), or they simply want to connect with other likeminded people, enact the self, or express their struggling(Correa & Jeong, 2011). On the other hand, users just want to have fun by sharing their thoughts.

Nevertheless, I still have a doubt that we have already witnessed the full potential of new media. Many people are using it for different purposes, and even different races have dissimilar perspectives and usages of new media (Correa & Jeong, 2011). Still, new media appear to be for young people currently, and some level of technical knowledge was surely a factor to encourage active usage of new media, despite the presence of privacy concerns (Blank & Reisdorf, 2012). The role of technology is one of critical factors to define new media. Our urge to communicate with others was never a new concept. We now can actualize our impulse in a bigger scale because of Internet and new media technology. Even the concept of interactivity is transforming because interactivity embedded user interfaces are facilitating our urge to communicate. We no longer need to sit straight in front of Desktop PC. Couch-potato is no longer exclusively implying a lazy TV addict. Thanks to Tablet and voice-oriented software (Siri and Dragon), any brilliant mind can exert their creativity wherever they want. Still, it is not clear how new media would evolve or even where it would lead us. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that new media is a fad because, regardless what applications and platforms dominates today, as long as whatever new platforms can mimic the dynamics of our natural communication, the idea of web 2.0 will stand strong!!

The Correa and Jeong (2011) article attempted to identify differences among racial groups when it comes to their use of participatory online technologies. The findings identified many possible differences. One set of findings that I found most interesting was the different ways that the groups expressed using participatory tools for enacting the self. For example, African-American students discussed using these tools to express themselves while White students discussed using the tools to showcase their work. However, Asian students talked about using the tools for keeping records. Personally, I can see myself using participatory tools for all three reasons, but it is interesting to see how the discussions among the groups appeared to be somewhat different.

The Blank and Reisdorf (2012) article was somewhat interesting in that they looked at web 2.0 from the user perspective. In their literature review, they discuss some of the areas that have done research on web 2.0. The business literature appeared to be one of the major areas. The article said that some of this literature has discussed how small companies should add certain Web 2.0 features (As used by bigger successful businesses) to their online presence to better their business. However, there does not appear to be much research on the issue from a users perspective. Blank and Reisdorf (2012) state, “In summary, prior work on Web 2.0 has focused typically on organizational producers of content. There is little work examining how users actually interact with Web 2.0 platforms” (p. 541). This is an interesting point, especially for the business literature. I think that I have probably discussed this before, but in a business that utilizes the marketing concept, the consumer’s needs should be placed first. The business should learn about the consumer/user, and find out what he or she wants. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising to me that there has not been much research from the user’s perspective.

The readings in “New Media and Cultures” focused on the Internet’s impact on culture. Chapter 2 also discussed the term interactivity. This term has been discussed many times in our class, and I have grown to rely on its use in my own definition of new media. Finally, we had two readings from “The Social Media Reader” as well. Chapter 7 focused on Journalism, and how different movements within the field have had different views of the audience, and chapter 16 was a short piece on what we do with our free time. Though chapter 16 was short, I found the subject matter to be interesting. The chapter discussed how the younger generation might not be satisfied with standing still and enjoying the “show.” This generation is looking for the mouse. They want to interact with what they are viewing.

References

Blank, G., & Reisdorf, B. (2012). The participatory web: A user perspective on Web. 2.0. Informa- tion, Communication & Society, 15, 537-554.

Correa, T., & Jeong, S. H. (2011). Race and online content creation: Why minorities are actively participating in the Web. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 638-659.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

I found this week’s readings quite fascinating as both a continuation/elaboration of previously discussed topics within the class as well as being representative of the enigmatic claim to identity and individual creation on the Internet (or anywhere for that matter). The question of the week is what does it mean to be an audience in the shadow of this new and ever-expanding network form? Marshall comes at the problem from a cultural studies perspective, and I must say that his approach is one that I like. His consideration of the interpretation of texts as a creative act is spot on (and manages to sum up the importance of academia as a world where students require and thrive from the interpretation of more skilled and knowledgeable professors in an effort to learn how to interpret for themselves). How then does the interpretation and engagement with the Internet tell us about the overall structured apparatus but more importantly about ourselves? Marshall hits on point after point of relevant ideas, whether in regard to control and surveillance within the Internet (with a dash of Foucault) and the visibility (even as seemingly anonymous avatars) the Internet provides. Then there is the co-creation and prosumption of the “environment” of the network with the concept of  “feedback loops” seems to indicate that users within the network invariably become that medium. What would Marshall McLuhan and his “medium as the message” have to say about this? Perhaps we have never stopped being the medium. Just as our physical bodies serve our souls/identities, the Internet network becomes the new body, the new medium of transport for our avatars, digitized representations, co-creations, flaneur-style odysseys of exploration in an infinitely expanding wonderland of opportunity.

Also, Marshall inspired me remember the Tamagotchi (the digital pet), something I haven’t thought about in a very long time.

Shirky won my heart with his light-hearted romp of an essay talking about surplus time, sitcoms, and dealing with our problems by drinking gin. This kind of theoretical lark is great to shake things up, making evident the notion of “cognitive surplus” without getting too terribly in-depth. By using humorous anecdotes, Shirky confronts the rapidly changing technological age and how “we” consider our involvement in the network temporally and in terms of surplus, something we seemingly want to deny most of the time.

My intrigue with Marshall and smiles with Shirky should not discount the other articles/essays of the week, all of which adequately confronted the question of the unknown digital terrain of the Internet as a space in which participation and creation both empower and reconfigure previously maintained perceptions. “Race and Online Content Creation..” by Correa and Jeong is an important study and particularly interesting in the wake of our election. Though I haven’t seen any racism on my Facebook feed, I have read posts from numerous friends who are suddenly feeling the need to “purge” their friends list due to savage racist posts from their more conservative “friends.” Though the space of the Internet allows for beneficial identity creation for minorities, it still remains a place for backward thinking and terrible negativity.

The consumer of Web 2.0 content was dissected from several vantage points in this week’s readings. For the key issues explored by our class over the semester, Anderson’s From Indymedia to Demand Media’s exploration of algorithmic journalism stood out as exemplary of both a function and problem created by Web 2.0. The mystical audience lies just on the other side of the screen, determining our own future content exposure with every click. Our preferences and interests are being cataloged and indexed for reference in future content production. While the other types of journalism explored in this article were useful for gaining a better understanding of audience issues within reporting, the tracking of audience interest, preference, and consumption done using algorithmic journalism could mean that in the future, we will have no one but ourselves to blame if content does not have quality.

Blank and Reisdorf’s article, The Participatory Web, confirmed several theories we’ve already discussed in class about the internet’s audience: that those in a higher economic class are more likely to use the internet, those in retirement are not, and those with “willingness to learn new aspects of a technology” will utilize it more (2012). It also closed with that all important question, what will happen to those on the other side of the digital divide?

Correa and Jeong did provide fresh information with their piece on minorities on the web. Information was presented that showed that minority groups are more likely to supply online content. The connectedness that the internet can provide to reach out to other niche groups could be a driving factor. However, it was surprising that this wasn’t necessarily true for those of Asian descent. As presented in the article, they are more likely to use the internet as a form of “personal record” than connecting or exposition of their work than other groups (Correa and Jeong, 2010)

Chapter 2 of Marshall’s New Media Cultures, summarized and confirmed my own theory of what new media actually is in conjunction with their explanation of interactivity. According to Marshall, “Interactivity thus expressed the breakdown of the broadcast model of the delivery of information” (2004). He describes how interactivity has created a back and forth exchange between the broadcaster as opposed to the indirect interaction that used to take place between the listener and the radio or television. Chapter 4 goes on to describe new media, paraphrasing Chesher, “new media invokes you to respond, while older media forms attempt to evoke sentiments” (1996). I particularly enjoyed chapter’s fours section on “The complex role of capital” of the internet. It recounts the internet’s long inability to profit from the “library patrons and pirates” of the internet. Documenting the bust of the dot com era, the article lead me to reflect on Facebook’s recent decision to force “pay to promote” on all of us. This could be potentially crippling for higher ed. and small businesses. If those entities pull out of Facebook because it no longer serves a marketing function for them, will that have an effect on Facebook’s usage by its average subscriber? Will Facebook alienate a sub-set of its own audience and send the rest packing as a result?