Virutal Culture on the Sunset Strip

And so we come full circle with what is likely to be my final entry in my KCB201 blog as I am of a mood to take a much closer look at the topic I first introduced in my very first post. ‘How do technologies become cultural technologies’ is the question I posed way back on April the fourth. At the time I was still finding my feet regarding this assignment and was just looking to get some runs on the board early and concentrate on the bigger issues in later blogs. It wasn’t until now, whilst looking over some of my entries that I read over that little dejected piece and, quite surprisingly, it immediately piqued my interest immediately. As a lover of film and someone who works part time at a cinema complex that topic immediately connected with something that had very recently occurred to me regarding the film’s being produced. For I had been noticing the ways in which the film industry, undoubtedly a cultural institution in our contemporary society, had been impacted on, and shaped by many of the technologies discussed in this unit. This impact can be seen in both obvious and subtle ways as it has affected not only the way the industry is run and product is distributed but also the content of the product itself. whether it be through the Viral marketing for the latest batman film integrating interactivity with traditional media, film’s being made with online assistance serving as an example of open-sourcing or subtexts in popular mainstream films regarding online community evidenced in the recent Diane Lane vehicle, Untraceable, the presence of virtual cultures in an old-school cultural institution like cinema is evidence of the cultural worth of interactive technologies.

Are produsers going to produse our next Prime Minister? Not likely…

In Axel Bruns article ‘The Future is User-Led: The Path Towards Widespread Produsage’ there is a section entitled ‘Produsing Democracy’ in which he delves into the way in which Produsage can, and is, being utilized to change the face of democracy (Bruns, 2007, 9). The active participation of produsers across the board is seen as a sign that this increased participation can be used for the betterment of the democratic process. This viewpoint, while not without a fair degree of merit, is also a little too premature and perhaps a little to optimistic to truly be seen as the second coming of democracy.

Democracy is defined as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A government by the people then, so ideally, for a government such as this to be truly representative the active participation of the people involved is essential. We do not live in a perfect world, however, and politics is still often seen as the domain of a ‘higher class’ of citizen. This viewpoint has roots in the beginnings of the process, for example, in the first forty years of American Congress the newspaper clippings which followed politics “were read by literate, relatively affluent, and politically active persons who could afford the price of a newspaper subscription,” and this was only about five to ten per cent of the population (O’Blanchard, 1974, 78). So while the concept of a large scale political following does not exactly have history behind it, history does seem to suggest that the new opportunities opened up to citizens through Produsage will definitely make a difference to the political process.

For the advent of the radio allowed political news to reach many more then it had in print media alone allowing for a more efficient and ideal form of democracy which is still a primary, if often overlooked, source of political news (Drew & Weaver, 2006, 25). The same can be said of television as it emerged as the number one source of political information, all of which bodes well for the ability of interactive technologies and Produsage to improve the democratic process. It is important not to get ahead of ourselves, however, for the evidence suggests the effect of these new technologies is less then one may think. While using the internet to obtain and engage with party members is beginning to be seen as a worthwhile approach “on its own it won’t have much effect on political support” and as such “Internet popularity does not yet make or break elections” (Bartlett, 2008). And while the numbers of internet users and produsers engaging with politics is rising evidence from the 2004 federal election suggests that this activity is coming from a small amount of extremely active users who, in all likelihood, would be engaging politically regardless. So while it is clear that Produsage and the internet will have an effect on democracy it is the extent to which this technology will change the structure of the system that is most contentious – it seems unlikely to serve in galvanizing citizens and lead to a new era in democracy. This new era was tagged by Bruns as “Demodynamics” which he defines as being “based on molecular politics. It comes into being from the cycle of listening, expression, evaluation, organization, lateral connection, and emerging vision … a people in labor, a people yet to come” (Bruns, 2007, 9).

The evidence suggests, however, that these ‘people in labor’ have a little while to wait yet, for as recently as 2004 (an election in which the internet was widely available for) only a little over sixty percent voted in the presidential election. This voter apathy extends to Australia also where despite compulsory voting there are many who choose to donkey vote, which is a method of making their vote invalid. It is relatively clear that no matter the improvements in technology there will always be those who are too disillusioned or just not interested enough to participate in the political process.

Bartlett, A. (2008) Using the Internet for Politics The Bartlett Diaries

Bruns, A (2007) The Future is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage PerthDAC Conference

Drew, D. & Weaver, D. (2006) Voter Learning in the 2004 Presidential Election: Did the Media Matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly Columbia: Spring 2006. Vol. 83, Iss. 1; pg. 25, 18 pgs

O’Blanchard, R. (1974) Congress and the Press: An Historical Sketch Journal of Communication New York: Summer 1974. Vol. 24, Iss. 3; pg. 78, 4 pgs

Reply to Lady Em's Post - preferred presentation

This was a particularly interesting post and for the most part a well thought out and relevant piece. I’m not in total agreement with some of the conclusions you have drawn, namely, that politicians would be ill-advised to employ Howard’s straight talking techniques and rely more on emotional resonance. I think online political campaigning is too new an initiative to be able to draw any such conclusions and what limited evidence that does exist does not seem to back up that theory. For Kevin Rudd, who of course went on to win the election, also employed the use of a YouTube Video that was much the same stylistically as Howard’s.

Barack Obama too has not been completely reliant on emotive videos and has released various ‘straight talking’ videos of his own.

A number of politicians across the world have spoken out about the advantages of online campaigning citing that it gives them “a chance speak directly to their constituents and potential supporters” (Hendry, 2007). This ability to appear to be speaking directly to individual voters is further evidence of the empowerment people are gaining through interactive technologies and I suspect that the direct, fact over entertainment addresses will continue to be a weapon in the political arsenal.

Hendry, A. 2007. Google Throws Hat into Election 07: Gives Pollies, Voters a Voice Computer World (Online):
accessed on 30^th April 2008

Identity in the Online Age

I thought I’d take the time to reflect a bit and evaluate on a few issues that were touched upon in my previous post ‘what is the difference between online and offline communities’, in particular, the issue of identity. As I stated in that post there are various online communities where one’s identity cannot be taken for granted and one has no true idea of who they may be interacting with. The issue of identity in a virtual age is a complex one and sparks a myriad of questions including, just how important is one’s identity in on online environment and to what extent do one’s offline and online personas reflect or effect the other?

It is important to first of all dispel the viewpoint that one instantly becomes anonymous in an online environment. That their personality, background, gender and race are irrelevant in the virtual world. This view is highly simplified and short-sighted for it discards the massive influence these factors have on ones characteristics as well as suggesting online communities are a culturally and racially neutral place. Don’t believe the hype - there is not a gender-blind and color-blind utopia on the web, race is not invisible or irrelevant in cyberspace (Ess & Sudweeks, 2005). To claim as much insinuates a cultural neutrality when in fact there is a definite prevailing ‘whiteness’ that operates in these environments. Minority races and cultures are thus forced to actively work in order to make invisible their own characteristics invisible in order to participate equally (Flew, 2005, 67).

So despite the fact that all the features of one’s true identity are not automatically unknown once online there can be no doubt that, for many, it is that very possibility for anonymity and the ability to play with personas that is a major appeal of online communities. This fascination can be seen in many online forums not least of which being the vast amounts of people who participate in online games. Online gamers create their own characters which serve as there representative in that environment and these avatars can be as different from their creator as they wish. According to Murray in Wiszniewski & Coyne the ability to play with masks, assume new identities, and present oneself through the mask of the avatar, is one of the strengths of the new, emerging narrative forms of cyberspace. In this regard the excitement regarding what online identities are capable of is well understood. An argument is beginning to surface, however, that due to these online communities it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to remember that “the mask is artifice. The face behind it is the true object” (Wiszniewski & Coyne, 2002, 202). This belief has at it’s heart the fear that online identities are corrosive to ones true identity which I don’t believe to be invalid for it is clear that there are close ties between identity and virtual cultures and it is too early to understand that relationship fully. These claims have been disputed, however, on the grounds that identity is “an idealist fiction” to begin with and therefore it is irrational to claim that “discontinuities in identity are products of information technology” (Ibid. 195).

The issue of identity has always been of great concern to the world at large. Establishing, maintaining and questioning one’s identity is part of what it means to be human and as such there is no more important side to virtual culture as an issue then this one. For it is clear from the areas explored above that there is a general consensus that this area of online community has definite ramifications for the issue of identity. As technology continues to advance the possibilities of what we are capable of continue to expand and as race, culture and gender continue to diverge online that most important of questions – who we are? – will become increasingly difficult to answer.

Ess, C., and Sudweeks, F. (2005). Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward new understandings Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 9.

Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.

Wiszniewski, D & Coyne, R. (2002) Mask and Identity: The Hermeneutics of Self-Construction in the Information Age in Renninger, A & Shumar, W. (Ed.) Building Virtual Communities (pp. 191-214). New York, New York: Cambridge Press.

Dan the local chemist Vs. Bill O'Reilly: Journalism in an Open Sourced World

Web 2.0 has been defined as “the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and, an attempt to understand the rules for success on the new platform” which include treating software as a process of engagement, opening data for re-use by others and thinking of applications as residing in the space between devices (O’Reilly in Bruns, 2008, 3). It is safe to say that this revolution has seen the approach towards the internet change from something companies approached half-heartedly to a view that acknowledges the internet as “a very real and open thing where walls and control don't work” (Creamer, 2008, 1). Along with old conceptions of what the internet is capable of Web 2.0 has also reshaped the very structure and approach of various industries, none more so then news broadcasters and other journalistic institutes the world over. For as technology has advanced so too has the news cycle accelerated and with so many disasters and global events to cover at any one time a form of “open-source reporting, citizen journalism, has stepped in to fill the breach” (Fernando, 2008, 8).

The problem this presents for traditional journalistic sources is similar to the one many industries have been forced to deal with in this interactive age, namely, how best to adapt to these new surroundings in order to not be made redundant. In the case of citizen journalism there is a real fear that it will undermine mainstream news services by addressing alternative issues and shedding light on areas that have not traditionally been covered. As a sign of this concern mainstream news services are beginning to incorporate citizen journalism into their day to day operations and in some cases basing their entire business model on them. NowPublic, a Vancouver-based online news site, is turning ordinary citizens into on-the-spot reporters and is building a veritable army of correspondents, so large in fact that co-founder Leaonard Broday insists that they will become “the world’s largest news organization” (Spence, 2007, 38). By legitimizing these freelance content provides as opposed to rejecting them sites such as NowPublic are taking the right course of action in a market environment where open-sourcing and collective intelligence are key concepts.

In this environment, where the sheer amount of news being generated and reported is limitless I find myself concerned about what this will mean for the future of journalism. For with citizen journalists and traditional broadcasters working in partnership the lines become blurred as to what gets reported, who now controls the quality of what is broadcasted? And with the boundless amount of news being circulated on the web one would think we would be more informed then ever before. However, the sheer volume of information available has, in a way, hidden certain voices and stories more effectively then traditional broadcasters ever could. Is it possible that despite having such a wide range of different stories and opinions available we have become more narrow in our focus then ever before?

Bruns, A. 2008. The Future is User-Led: The Path Towards Widespread Produsage. 1 -10. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 29, 2008).

Creamer, M. 2008. It's Web 3.0, and someone else's content is king Advertising Age Chicago: Apr 14, 2008. Vol. 79, Iss. 15; pg. 1, 2 pgs

Fernando, A. 2008. Citizen-powered journalism fills a void Communication World Vol. 25, Iss. 1; pg. 8, 2 pgs

Spence, R. 2007. The Ultimate Newsroom Profit Toronto: Mar 2007. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 38, 2 pgs

What is the difference between online and offline communities?

As someone of an age where the internet has been in existence for the entirety of my adult life virtual communities are not a new concept. From a personal standpoint there are a number of online communities that I myself belong too such as Facebook and aintitcool.com. These two communities are completely different from one another in terms of their purpose and the sort of people involved in the community. The fact remains, however, that they are both online communities and the question of how much these sites and discussions effect, and indeed, have in common with offline communities is an important issue.

Online communities have been defined as “social aggregations that emerge from the net when enough people carry on … public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationship in cyberspace” (Rheingold in Flew 2004 62). This definition is not completely whole however when one takes into account the emergence of social networking sites such as Facebook where there is a strong possibility that any ‘personal relationships’ found there exists both in and out of cyberspace. This is important to consider for, using Facebook as an example, if someone were to have an argument with a Facebook friend who they also happened to know in their offline community both relationships would suffer. Therefore it could be argued that social networking sites such as this, by combining one’s online and offline lives, effectively bridge the gap between online and offline communities. This view is a little narrow minded however as social networking sites are still, at their core, online communities where much of the appeal of the site comes from “a desire to be connected to those who are like you and to avoid situations in which you would feel awkward” (Winner in Flew 2004 67). The recent addition of a ‘news feed’ feature on Facebook served as a reminder of the vast differences between cyberspace and reality as people were now able to monitor all of your online activities, effectively making simple something that would be difficult and illegal to do offline. The fact that the feature garnered such outrage from Facebook users is an example of just how effectively social networking sites do blur the lines of online and offline community (Glaser 2006).

The balance between online and offline may always be an issue with sites such as Facebook but what of online communities such as aintitcool.com where members are drawn together from around the world by a shared interest, their identity and other features of their offline life not discussed and not overly important; what does an community such as this have in common, if anything, with offline communities? Among the reasons why people participate in online discussion groups such as this are:

- The opportunity to form friendships and relationships that may be perceived as being more difficult to develop in the off-line community

- The ability to play with personas

- The capacity to circulate new ideas among a froup of like-minded people

- The chance to find people who share the same interests

- The search for romantic and sexual relations

(Shenton and MecNeely in Flew 2004 69)

The majority of the reasons mentioned above are the same things that people want from their offline community also. Once again it is a matter of people feeling this desire for connection without the need for awkwardness. So therefore, if one’s motivations are similar in an offline and online environment then perhaps the only real difference between the two communities is the technology itself.

Glaser, M. (2006) Why Participants Matter in Online Communities MediaShift (Online)

accessed on 16^th April 2008

Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.

How do technologies become cultural technologies?

The question discussed by Terry Flew of how new media technologies come to exist "not simply as material forms that impact upon culture, but rather as themselves cultural forms" is an interesting one. It has much to do with the connectedness and and connection that said technology has with it's cultural and social surroundings. For rather then existing as just an operational tool the technology becomes a cultural technology when it is bestowed with cultural worth and a important place within social heirachies.