CMUN 240 FINAL BLOG: A Reflection

I have always been interested in the new media, but having taken this class, my interest grew higher. It also amazes me how far we have come from our first day of class. I remember during one of our earlier classes, we made a list of what we think is old media and new media. The class’ first response was the usual: the iPhone, the iPod, etc. Now that the semester is almost over, I now know that it’s not just about the new technology but also the new culture – from people making mashups to the issue of e-waste. There are a lot of things to learn in the world of new media.

This class has also made me realize that convergence is not just about mixing video and audio and putting it online. It is about many things like for example, online games being a reflection of the real world. The convergence is so high, it is hard to determine where real world ends and where the virtual world starts and vice-versa. It is similar to the issue of the movie that we watched in class. eXistenZ was really interesting, and it also made me think about how much we use the new media now to the point that it has seriously become a part of our lives. It goes back to the second writing assignment that we did where we had to do a 2-day fast from new media. That activity really made me see how I have become dependent on new media, especially my iPod. This also goes back to our other topic discussed in class – the issue of identity and community. Who are we online? Do we act the same in the virtual world as we do in the real world?

I have also learned a lot about the themes of utopia and dystopia because of new media, especially when I watched the movie Idiocracy for the first writing assignment. It was also interesting to see those clips of advertisements we watched from YouTube where the new media such as the Internet was seen as this tool for us to have utopia, yet it’s not really all that when there are cyber crimes and other issues currently occurring because of it. Such issues include copyrighted materials. During our class last week, we talked about Disney and the “Happy Birthday” song being copyrighted so that no one can use it to their credit. But after that class, more questions came to mind such as copyright issues in blogs. Most blogs have communities where members can share pictures and other files, but I notice that there is more focus on online-sharing websites and P2P networks. Are blogs part of the free culture?

In conclusion, when I read our last reading for this semester, I noticed two terms that will probably continue to be a topic for those of us who use the new media, and there are a lot of us for sure. The terms are “media concentration” and “culture jamming” (Jenkins, 248). For “media concentration,” we talked in class how a number of big corporations own the media, and so these corporations have a big influence. Jenkins talks about how many people are involved in media reform to fight against media concentration (Jenkins, 248). But is that likely to change soon? It could be thanks to “culture jamming”, a term popularized by Mark Derry that refers to the “efforts of grassroots organizations to insert ‘noise’ into the communication process by challenging or disrupting the corporate flow of media” (Jenkins, 283).

Lawrence Lessig was right. The culture that we have right now is definitely not just read-only. We are now in a read-write culture where anyone can be a prosumer. I remember during the election night, I was working for Eurovision, and I was watching the reporters all over the world doing their report. It amazed me how technology makes a lot of things so much easier right now. Thanks to technology, Eurovision was able to broadcast live the Obama rally at Grant Park, and people all over the world could see what was happening in Chicago. I was a spectator during that time, but after the rally, I filmed the crowd walking by Michigan Avenue with my camera and used the clip for my Broadcast News class. I was both a consumer and producer during that night.

There are still so many questions as to what will happen to the new media and to the society in the future. Since not all people have access to new media right now, will there be a time where all of us get full access? What are the effects then? And will there be a higher significance of convergence – like say, people will get their news from video games perhaps? Lastly, what about copyright online? Right now, it is hard for users to determine the exact rules, and a lot do not follow them anyway. So what is the future for copyright? Will there be a new definite set of rules or will there be an absolute free use of copyrighted materials? We may never get the answers right now, but for sure, all these are not impossible to be happening in the future.

Outside sources:
1. Technologies Invade College Campuses
2. jibjab, an original production of political satire and funny animations. Their videos feature a mixture of cultures.
3. My video after the Obama rally:

new public communication

I just got back online after not using the Internet for two days (for our writing assignment), and the first thing I did was check my e-mails and visit my favorite sites. As I was doing these online activities, it struck to me what Quentin Jones said about “online settlement.” To have online settlement, there must be a)a group involved, b)a common space, and c)a minimum level of sustained membership (Lister, et, al, 176). Websites like Best Week Ever and Oh No They Didn’t! have become online settlements or communities. For both sites, there is a group of people who are interested with what’s happening in pop culture – from celebrities to reality shows – and they comment on the posts posted on the Websites everyday. Each of these sites has become like a big community full of interaction where there’s an exchange of ideas and opinions. And it’s not just the groups of people who interact with one another, the moderators and editors of these Websites also take part. It is interesting how most of the members of these Websites do not know each other personally, but when they interact with one another, they are on first-name basis, and there is dialogue. Granted, the names may be their real names or not, but that then goes to another issue where people create a sort of identity online that is similar or very different from their real selves. Going back to my online activities, some of the messages that I got through e-mail were replies from my posts or comments in blogs, and it made me realize that one of the reasons why I check my e-mails is because I need to keep up with the interaction that I have with other people online. We do not always use phones to communicate anymore, especially when communicating in the online world.

The readings for this week also mentions “the development of interactive news services” where the public gets to communicate and interact, not just consume news (Lister, et, al, 177). Take for example the political blogs such as the Daily Kos. These blogs allow the public to post and also comment on other people’s posts. These political blogs are one of the places where the public go to get their news. Reasons for it include being convenient, fast, interactive. Sure there is a problem of authenticity and credibility, but I think that has actually helped the case where the public become their own journalists doing their own research and then deciding whether to believe such news or not. There is also the case of online bullying where comments from people can be hurtful and/or offensive to others. This makes me think whether we should have a code of ethics online or not. It may be hard considering that each Website may want to implement their own rules and whatnot. So what is the best solution?

Another thing is that the Internet as an online community has oftentimes become a unifier for people even when it is just online. But Lister reminds us that the Internet is still a “scarce resource,” so the idea of universality does not exist (Lister, et, al, 180). But could there be a chance in the future where the Internet/online community becomes universal?

Media Consumption and Identity Construction

Who are we online? That is the topic of this week’s readings, and a question I asked myself while going over the readings. In New Media: A Critical Introduction, Lister talks about the consumption of media being a part of “an active process of identity construction” (p. 245). Could this be true? I think so. The media and technology have affected us in so many ways, and most often we do not even notice the extent of it. Is it because we are so used to the media and technology surrounding us? Or we just do not care how it is affecting us? But going back to what Lister suggests, the one thing that came up to my mind when I read that part is iGoogle. iGoogle is a service of Google in which you can personalize your homepage. You get to decide which features you want in your homepage. These features go from having the latest news or having your horoscope posted on the homepage. Basically, iGoogle lets your personality “shine” I would say. It lets you show off what you like and what you are interested in, etc.

If we go for a bigger picture, let’s take YouTube for example. YouTube helps you become a prosumer. You can watch videos of other people, and you can also make your own for others to see. The more you watch videos, the more you get to see and experience other things that you could possibly not know if YouTube did not exist. And if you make a video, again, you get to show off what you like or do not like, you decide.

Another thing about YouTube and other kinds of media is the influence that brings to people. It is easy to be influenced by the media because they are everywhere. We may start liking a new rock band because we got to hear their music being streamed online. All of these are example of identity construction because of our consumption of media.

And how about interactions – we get to interact with other people even though we have not seen them personally or that even though they live on the other side of the planet. We also get to keep in touch with friends that we have not seen a long time thanks to technology. My second question now is that in part of identity construction, do people get to learn good manners through media consumption? Do we get to learn some kind of values from consuming media?

Outside sources:
1. iGoogle
2. New Media Consumption – a report from BBC News

3. Media and Everyday Life by David Gauntlett

Keeping up with NSNS posts..

Been very busy, but here — 2 more:

story numero uno
story numero dos

Interesting read….

THE PARADOX OF PALIN: Being a woman versus supporting women

Forum | Claire Morgenstern

Being a woman and supporting women’s rights are two different things. Herein lies the paradox of Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is incontestably a woman, and only the second female vice presidential candidate the United States has ever had. This, it would seem, is one more step toward gender equality and female empowerment. Maybe, one begins to think, what we need to turn this country around is not a party shift, but a gender shift. Women, one reasons, seem to be accomplishing a whole lot these days.

In case one didn’t know, there is more than one woman in politics. John McCain is unfortunately aligned with this ideological scenario. Putting Palin in as the token woman in the race after Obama received the nomination, as though we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between her, an inexperienced, provincially-minded governor of Alaska, and Hillary Clinton, a woman who has reinvented herself as a political giant and is as experienced, powerful, and respected as any man in the running, is insulting. More insulting is the fact that, in making his choice, McCain relied on the unwavering solidarity of the feminist community and bonds of sisterhood to help tip the scales in November.

Yes, Sarah Palin is a woman — a woman who represents women who believe that the government should hold the key to the future of their reproductive rights. Sarah Palin wants to go back to a time when women endured desperate, risky procedures to end unwanted pregnancies at their own physical and emotional peril. As French philosopher Bernard Henry Levy wrote in the Sept. 14 issue of New York magazine, Palin is a “caricature of a free woman who plans to deny her peers one of their most cherished and hard-won rights, the right to an abortion.” In short, Palin represents the women of 50 years ago, and in doing so, is alienating the women of right now.

Months ago, I was shocked to read that my favorite “moderate,” John McCain, planned to overturn the 36-year-old historic decree that is Roe v. Wade. A man, one who has never felt the real fear of pregnancy, who has never truly contemplated an abortion, making this decision for millions of women all over the country. In such cases in which children are born into less-than-ideal environments, far more often it is women saddled with the consequences of this choice, their own choice, as the law stands now, to give birth. Eighty-four percent of single parents are mothers, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2007.

This is why I was shocked to read that Palin supported McCain so much. In addition, she backed the senator in his support of a bill to alter the definition of abortion such that it includes the use of contraception. In an editorial in last Friday’s New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards extrapolate on the potential consequences of such a decision — “[Health and Human Services] does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to medical care.”

We’re talking about a woman whose own 17-year-old daughter, empowered by a chunk of the billion dollars the Bush administration spent on abstinence-only education last year, decided to have the baby, marry the father, and in doing so give up all of her own dreams and plans. I’m not chastising Bristol Palin for her pledge, which is honorable in every respect; I am chastising her mother for not teaching her that she had other choices so she could make a real decision on her own and not follow what she was led to believe was simply “protocol.”

The National Organization of Women (NOW) knows what’s up: For the second time in the organization’s history, the group has endorsed a presidential candidate. The first was Geraldine Ferrara in 1984, the first female presidential candidate, who they felt best represented the rights and issues that were important to women. The second is Barack Obama, for the same reason.

Palin cites her Christian Fundamentalist beliefs for her stance on abortion. Clearly this excuse is a red herring, as the law is known colloquially as the right to choose, and those that support it pro-choice. By the terms of this law, doctors are allowed to elect not to perform abortions; patients are allowed to not have them. This is a moral, ethical, and religious issue on which Americans aren’t going to agree, and the law as it stands reflects that. And if Americans aren’t going to agree, we can’t responsibly pass, or un-pass, a law that will unjustly restrict the rights of all Americans.

What is more frightening is the degree to which Palin lets her religious views color her political ones, issues far more potent and of far greater consequences than abortion. Palin believes that global warming, the hurricanes destroying New Orleans and Galveston, Texas, and the Iraq war are part of God’s plan.

As the feminist and playwright Eve Ensler wrote in the Sept. 8 Huffington Post, “Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves….Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference….[As vice president] she would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.”

Hers is a philosophy that cannot and will not be used to govern this country, a country that is known as a world power that consistently sets the global pace when it comes to scientific, artistic, and ideological innovations and beliefs. This standing is rapidly deteriorating, and will only deteriorate further if the McCain/Palin ticket manages to elude enough voters by the time November rolls around.

Religion is a powerful and unchangeable force. It is what gives people hope when there is no hope and is a driving force behind the lives of many individuals who live in the United States. It is also a personal choice and a private practice that has no place in politics. Worship and believe whatever and whomever you want — just don’t try to change federal laws to suit your particular choices.

This is an election based on politics, not gender, not religion, not Alaska. Let’s vote for the right candidate based on the issues for which he or she stands, not because she is the same gender or worships the same God that we do.

source

Understanding Comics

McCloud’s “Understanding Comics” is very enlightening. I have observed many things involving comics, but this book helped me see the bigger picture. One example is when McCloud mentioned the history of comics and showed us a pre-Columbian picture manuscript. Nowadays, we see comics (mostly) as this form of art used to entertain people, when in fact, hundreds of years ago, comics have already existed, and they are used for showing the history of one’s civilization. However, there are a lot of comics in recent times that are like the said manuscript. One of them is Art Spiegelman’s Maus I and Maus II. Spiegelman (who is also mentioned on the acknowledgements in “Understanding Comics”) wrote Maus I and Maus II in comics form, but the books are not for entertainment, but for people to learn the history of the Holocaust, specifically to what happened to Spiegelman’s father as a Polish Jew. Another example is Persepolis. It was also written in comics form, and the story was about an Iranian woman experiencing conflict between herself and her country.

So basically, comics are important tools – whether for entertainment, for learning, etc. Comics also started to exist many centuries ago. My question now is that how does comics adapt to our society right now? Comics are still popular, but are they as popular as before? If not, is it because of the new media such as the Internet, etc?

Outside sources:
1. Art Spiegelman and Maus I & II
2. Persepolis comic spread
3. I was wondering if this can be considered a comic?

NSNS posts (part deux)

And so, my intern responsibilities continue, and here are more posts. Yey!

story numero uno
story numero dos
story numero tres
story numero cuatro

convergence

Convergence, in terms of the flow of content across multiple media platforms, is an interesting topic. It is everywhere, but we don’t notice it all the time because we’re so used to it. For example, on YouTube, we can find many videos featuring movie clips that were taken in the movie theaters using cell phones (see outside source #2). Other videos that feature such clips come from DVDs that were ripped and then uploaded on YouTube.

Another example of convergence is the live video stream also found online. There are many websites such as ESPN that feature streaming besides the usual telecast. There are also other Websites that feature live video stream, and most of the time they get this stream from television networks all over the world.

These are some of the many examples of new media and how it’s changing people’s behaviors, people’s culture, etc. According to Jenkins, convergence also refers to “the migratory behavior of media audiences who would go almost anywhere in search of the kind of entertainment experiences they want” (2). Many people nowadays do not go to movie theaters anymore. Instead, they wait for the DVD to come out or watch the movie online if possible. Many people look for streams online if they want to watch something that is not available on TV, and if one channel doesn’t work, then they transfer to another channel.

My question now is that does convergence exist because we are more connected to one another than before? Or is it vice-versa? And going back to the Dino Ignacio example, I was also wondering how copyrighted works are/should be handled now that convergence has become more and more convenient.

I also started thinking about what Jenkins mentioned in the book: about him wanting to buy a simple phone where its only function is to be able to make a phone call. Does convergence hinder us from loving the simple things in life? I remember last Friday, I was using my laptop to do some paper work, but at the same time I was using it to listen to NPR and to chat with my friends on Facebook. The laptop looked so busy with a number of tabs being opened. How about smart phones? My Blackberry is used to make a phone call, but it also has other functions like an alarm clock, a calculator, an organizer, etc.

Outside sources:
1. Persepolis is a graphic novel adapted into an animated film
This is scene from the French film “Persepolis”: Marjane, an Iranian woman is singing Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger”

2. A YouTube video feat. a scene from the movie “Step Brothers”
3. When I read the part in the book about our lives, relationships… flowing across media channels, like how parents sometimes tuck their kids to bed or send them IMs from the other side of the glove, I got to think of this.

NSNS posts

I started working as an intern at National Student News Service last week, and just a few minutes ago I saw two of my stories posted online, yey!

Story numero uno
Story numero dos

2010 FIFA World Cup qualifications

Yes, you are a-okay in my book, Miro. Thanks to you, Die Mannschaft didn’t lose to Finland (which would have been a HUGE upset)! A tie is not the best result, but it’s better than losing so..

In other news, Spain won against Armenia and England won against Croatia!

photo credit: AFP via FIFA.com

PS. also posted on my LJ