Final Reflection

One of the most important things I learned through this class was that new media is not just a means of communication, but has broader social impacts that I never thought about. When I first took this class, I didn’t really know what to expect. It’s hard to be aware of changes taking place when they’re happening before your eyes. I grew up playing number munchers on Apple and computers and the Internet were slowly integrated throughout my education, becoming more and more prevalent. After awhile, I became so used to it being a part of my daily life. This class allowed me to step back and realize that this isn’t the way things always were and that this isn’t the way things are in many other countries. I became more aware of the digital divide, and had to think critically about what things were like before the digitial revolution and how that has impacted not only me, but the culture as a whole. The information overload lecture really made me stop and think about how I was being affected. It’s so easy to take for granted but I think it’s important to stop and consider the implications, both negative and positive.

I wish we had more time to explore global accessibility and its ramifications. The topic is so interesting because the Internet is “free” and not really governed by one agency so who is responsible for what? Should there be global laws? Local? And how will that be enforced? Because it is an issue that we are currently facing, and because it has so many implications by the precedent it sets, it is an important and interesting topic to discuss further, if we had the time. It’s a fascinating topic because it forces you to think on a deeper level—and take into consideration the views and circumstances of other cultures not just how it is in America.

My least favorite topic was VoIP and the more technical side. I don’t know why, but my brain shuts off when I hear computer terms and explanations. My brother is a network developer and when he talks about the intricacies of the process or explains 1’s and 0’s, I zone out. Being more of a “right-brained” person, anything that gets too technical instantly turns me off.

All in all, I really enjoyed the discussions we had as a class and the broad range of topics we studied!

Week 9 VOIP

I’ve never used VoIP technology and have heard vague stories about how something called Skype allows you to call long distance through your computer. My impression was that it would be a shoddy connection and used for chat-room type situations. The article on “howstuffworks.com” got a bit technical but it made me take the potentials of VoIP seriously and expelled many of my false perceptions. It very likely will lead to the extinction of the traditional telephone--in that it follows the trend we are making from analog to digital. The introduction of VoIP is already causing changes within the cable and telephone industries in that major companies such as AT&T are setting up VoIP within their systems. Even the FCC is taking this “new” technology seriously. There are a lot of kinks that need to be worked out and because it is so unreliable, I’d imagine it would take awhile before it becomes integrated into our daily communication habits. One concern for me is the question of whether or not it's wise to integrate the two different communication channels into one platform. If something goes wrong, both are affected. Currently, if I can't send out an email, at least I can pick up the phone to communicate...but what happens when your Internet connection goes down and both means of communication are taken out?

Telephone and cable companies will obviously have to integrate this technology into their own systems as well but the challenge will come in governance issues. It will have to change the structure of how they do business and adapt to the change in technology. (DQ’s) Because both the telephone and cable industries are standardized and regulated, how can they incorporate VoIP where regulation is much more difficult? Also, could this pose a problem with “national security” regulations as far as being difficult to monitor and trace? Is it the government’s place to step in and regulate VoIP technology? Why or why not? Whose is it?

Week 8 Reading

Best's article "Wireless Revolution and Universal Access" illuminates potentials for achieving economies of scope through Internet access in rural and "third world" geographies. I like that he presented both sides--recognizing that there are risks as well as benefits. The "lily-pad" concept was interesting because it raises the point that (theoretically) the amount of investment needed to jumpstart a "wireless revolution" is pretty minimal compared to the end results. At first, I was a little bit skeptical because I thought we should worry more about the basic needs of third-world countries before we worry about their access (or lack thereof) to the Internet. But in further reading, it was apparent that this accessibility would be a catalyst for further developments such as how the VAN decreased the cost for telecommunications in the Dominion Republic.

I'm still on the fence about how much effort should be put into providing universal accessibility to poorer, rural areas. This is not because I don't think there should be universal access--I think there should be. But is Internet communication something that is a priority for them? In the article, Best states that "Conservative ITU estimates indicate that residents or rural and poor communities might be willing to spend at least 1.5 percent of their incomes on information and communication needs." But I'm a bit skeptical. In poor, rural areas, the priority should be to build a stable economy/environment that could then turn around and support Internet technology self-sufficiently. Ideally, I think it is a great idea and agree that everybody has the right to access information. But realistically, it seems to me that the population of the areas wouldn't be able to fully utilize and reap the benefits of Internet technology until their more basic needs are met and fulfilled.

DQ's:

1. What are some ways that people in rural and third-world communities could use IT in context with their day-to-day life?

2. Do you think IT has evolved to be perceived as a "basic necessity" rather than a "luxury"? Or is this a cultural perception? Why or why not?

3. Do you think the benefits (economic, social) for UAP or licence expempt practices frequencies outweigh the risks (security, frequency interference)? Why/why not?

May 11 In Class Assignment

I opened Mike McGavick's site first and my first impression was that it was a typical, generic campaign style that we are bombarded with every election season. It turned me off immediately. The red, white and blue was a bit abrasive floating in wide border of muted grey. I also didn't like how the main screen was so small surrounded by that border. It looks shoddy.

Maria Cantwell's site on the other hand was comforting.. for lack of a better word. The colors were soft and pleasant. I liked the pictures of Rainier, Seattle workers and that her picture wasn't so central to the site. I also liked that the main page was simple and focused on a message from Maria herself. It was a lot more personal than McGavick's.

There really weren't too many opportunities to interact with the candidates on either page. You could email, contribute or be added to "lists" but I didn't see anything that had opportunities for dialogue. McGavick's "contact us" page has links to emails but Cantwell's just has a post form format. I like how McGavick had an "invite Mike to an event" link.

On McGavick's page, he had an "issues" link with a few major issues listed out. Then he had some "beliefs" that were bulleted out when you clicked on an issue like the War on Terrorism. I liked that he had a video link to a speech as well--although I haven't opened to judge the content. I didn't see an "issues" link on Cantwell's page. On her "about me" link, she lists out some of her beliefs on some core issues, but it's more of a narrative style. Also, because she's had experience in the senate, it outlines what actions shes has taken to support those beliefs.

I don't think either had very thorough explanations of their stance on issues.

If I were an undecided voter and judging strictly from these websites, I would trust Maria Cantwell more. Her page was more personal and less "politicky". I thought McGavick's page was somewhat cheesy and more likely to turn off people who get turned off by the politics of politics. The whole red white and blue, with the big cheesy picture and red exclamation mark screams "generic campaign".

I thought McGavick's page was more informative however in that he had a link to all sorts of "news" that was written about him and his views.

Week 7--Extra Credit.

It would be interesting to research whose page received the most hits. After reading this article, I realized that I had never visited the website of a presidential candidate. Most of the sources I gather information from are either cable news programs, 3rd party "neutral" sites that outline where the candidates stand on issues and other newsmagazine/paper sources. I agree that the pop-ups to enlist you to sign up for the email list especially when you think you are doing something else, like taking a quiz, do more harm than good. There's nothing more annoying than feeling like you've been tricked! Or when you're given reason to be suspicious clicking on anything else. Not a good pathos builder. It was also interesting to read about the behind-the-scenes work that goes into setting up the site to best accomodate the viewers. Every detail--including what platform and technology you choose--should fit the (I hate to say this) "target market", not just the content. It also brings up the dilemma of balance and compromise as noted in the Bush case. Bush's base varies from those in the red states who may be less technologically inclined to tech savvy execs in Seattle, so it would be important for the campaign team to take both into consideration. I wonder if there's a way that these websites could utilize what other medias do in separating by geographical locations. Maybe it's already being done, I'm not sure. But if the website could tell from the IP what region the user is in, and direct it to the "Northwest" or "East Coast" site, that might be interesting.

IT and Politics. WEEK 7

I loved Noam Sheiber’s article about Joe Trippi. Sheiber succinctly, but accurately sums up the potentials, possibilities and current limitations of new media’s influence on politics. It’s reminiscent of the concept of 6 degrees of separation in that networks can quickly become a catalyst for political domino effect, as demonstrated in this article. When reading this, I drew a parallel to Trippi’s strategy of bringing the voter to you and the strategy often used in business-operations management of letting the customer do the work for you. An example of this is self-check out in grocery stores. Setting up the infrastructure may take time and money, but the subsequent benefits compound over time. The benefits are mutual but ultimately, the business (or political organization) achieves their goal with the volunteered cooperation of the customer/voter—What more can you ask for?

New media is and will continue significantly affecting politics because it produces synergy. Political campaigns can achieve astounding economies of scale – but must be careful to keep the human element strong and the conversation open. The Cluetrain Manifesto is categorically applicable to politics as well. The article caveats the scope of success by admitting that influence is harder to attain in campaigns that are larger, such as running against George W. While I agree, shifting your objective in that situation is necessary to offset the difficulties. Insofar as rallying contribution funds and propelling voter turnout, the impact of IT may not be as great. But drawing from the eagle v ants analogy, the impact that an army of ants can make with sheer force of numbers is not something to be trifled with. In a smaller, primary election, the objective may be to influence the outcome—but in the general election, the objective may be to fortify your army for the next round. I think Dean’s campaign agrees.

If the Reidel et al is true, then there is promise for IT’s growth of influence in the larger, general political arenas. The article premises that the Internet and online news consumption has the most impact on national political knowledge vs local and that over time the Internet will become a substitute for newpapers and newsmagazines. If the Internet will be the main source of national political knowledge, then it will be easier for candidates to communicate with their (potential) constituents on a national level thus increasing the effectiveness of IT in that area. Overall, I agree with this premise and find it to be a true reflection of my habits. With the exception of Seattletimes.com, most of my consumption of news online comes from national sources. I’ve also stopped most of my hard-copy news subscriptions. And during election season, most ALL of my decisions are based on news I find online about the candidate and the platform issues.

1) Some possible drawbacks of IT and politics lie in the tendency to read blogs/sources that support and reiterate your own opinions. RSS and other technology are making this easier to do. How will this affect the ability of candidates to tap into the theoretical “reach” the Internet opens up to them? How can this be offset?

2) It seems that IT is being utilized more by candidates who have an underground-type following. Do you think IT is more beneficial to David or Goliath? If high profile candidates such as McCain, Giuliani and Hilary utilize IT as much as lower profile candidates do, would the benefit be as great? Or is it a vehicle more appropriate for the little man?

3) There are very few who would argue that the Internet has not had an impact on politics. To what extent is debatable, but it is clear from the 2000 and 2004 elections that there has been some sort of influence. Does the emergence of Internet in politics change the dynamics of political audiences? The Internet is becoming easier to use and more saturated in mainstream America. The demographics of Internet users are varied in age, race, sex, socio-economic backgrounds, etc. Can the proliferation of Internet in the political realm influence the type and number of people who participate and follow politics? What are the implications of IT on how people perceive politics?

In Class Exercise

The Seattle Times has about 47 RSS feeds--set up similarly to their online newspaper layout. The feeds are primarly organized by the sections the newspaper covers (nation, local, sports). There are also 2 feeds that correspond to the most read and most emailed articles.

OhMyNews has about 13 RSS feeds. These are organized somewhat more randomly. They list Korea, World, Technology, Art and Life, etc... Then in a separate section, they list more specifically each region of the world: Asia, Americas, etc.

Seattle Times seems to be better organized, but limited to the scope of their newspaper whereas ohmynews seems to have a more general focal scope. Neither require a fee to access RSS. Neither support blogs. Both impact mainstream news in that the reader is in control of the content he/she consumes, not the news organization.

Part II.
Sorting the Stephen Colbert by funny stuff etc, produces less results. And changing the authority also changes the qty of results--greater authority produces less... less authority produces more.

Clicking on the tag link after I serached for my topic, produced images and offered related tags as well. That would be helpful in searching for related topics and find things I haven't thought about. Blog finder definately decreased the number of results.

Blogcritics.org produced 13,381 results. It also automatically changed it to sort by freshness. This tells me that that many bloggers have linked that site to their site.

Week 6--Blogging!

It was interesting to read in O’Reillys We the Media, the history of the concept of personal journalism and how it evolved to be what it is today. While the concept dates back to the days of Thomas Paine and the pamphleteers, who like many bloggers, became a voice of dissent against the bureaucracy, much of the dissent was aimed towards government whereas today it seems as if traditional media has also become a target. It’s interesting that he points out how the old media started out in the name of public service, but ended up selling out to conglomerates where the bottom line became the bottom line. The blogging phenomenon seems to have started with the same intentions and interestingly seems to be commercializing more and more with the increase in popularity. When will major advertising companies start using the heavy traffic blogs as another large medium for making money? Have they already?

The question seems to be whether new media will help perpetuate and advance traditional media or if it’ll be the point of breaking away from it. With more and older media going online, it seems for right now, blogging technology is helping it evolve and grow. Major networks such as CNN, FOX, MSN are all going online—each with popular bloggers (Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, etc)—and incorporating the use of blogging technology into their shows. They seem to be trying to interact with their audience more, asking them to post their own blogs, or reply to theirs. However, the ultimate outcome lies in their hands. If they continue to be smart about it and evolve with the changing times as NPR is doing with their podcasts and their creative use of ad space, listen to their audience and adapt to the new wave of media catalysts, the strong network and influence they enjoy in the communications world will work in their favor.

Question: As O’Reilly asserts in We the Media “…industries consolidate. This is the nature of capitalism.” Do you think the fate of blogging will be similar to that of traditional media? In other words, is it inevitable that blogging will evolve into the same situation of corporate control? Why or why not?

When will major advertising companies start using the heavy traffic blogs as another large medium for making money? Have they already? What implications would this have?

How has NPR positioned itself to be a market leader in podcasts in contrast to other networks? How does this reflect the values and needs of the changing new media audience?