Blogging - 6 weeks later

I know this is slightly off topic to where we are in the unit so far.

To me, blogging is an effective way of reporting your ideas and stories to a large audience virtually, without the need of face to face communication. It works for some people, doesn't work for others. I was talking to my housemates about this unit just today and they asked me whether I prefer the blogging method, or the traditional physical seminar method. It kind of got me thinking, and after spending 6 weeks doing it this way, as good and convinient as it can be, I think i prefer seminars. Sure, using blogging in an academic way is ideal on a media communication course, but personally I don't think I'd chose to do it again if I had the oppurtunity. I like the way we can work at our own pace and not have to be rushed to doing all the work on one hour sessions, but generally, I feel seminars are more effective, for a greather understanding and interacting with peers. We have our study groups, but I prefer contact with tutors in reality rather than via the internet. I've researched blogging and looked at a few of my friends blogs (non academic) and I think blogs are great, but maybe not in an educational way. Its harder to grasp the topics and have actual conversations whilst trying to learn over the internet. I just feel its much easier to interact in person and academically works better for me. Maybe it just is me, but I thought I'd post about it anyway. I know its nothing really related to what we are expected to write about this week, but its to do with New Media Culture, so why not share my opinions :)

Website analysis.

The website I am analysing is http://www.cosmoplitan.co.uk/ because I often go on this website, and it is a popular site amongst people my age.

How is your chosen site structured?
The website is designed as an virtual magazine, an e-magazine. The website is prmarily based around the womans magazine. The website is broken down into a number of different subheadings, including "love and sex" "fashion and style" and "beauty". Each of the subheadings hyperlinks you to a new page, and within this page you can navigate to even futher pages, located under yet more subheadings such as "floral beauty" and "gold stars". It's almost as if each of the subheadings on the mainpage act as their own homepage, giving access so different topics within the particular title. The structure of the site is quite simple really, and easy to navigate and use, which is convineint for the audience and the content.

What is it about on a cultural level?
The cosmopolitan website is mainly aimed at females, and is quite heavily focused on celebrity and fashion culture. Alot of the website is dedicated to celebrity gossip and news, and fashion advice, suggestions and whats in season. The webisite is colourful, bold and slightly in your face, which grabs your attention and fits in with cosmopolitans motto "for fun, fearless women".

What is the appeal of you as a user?
Initially there was a number of things which appealed me to the website. The website is updated really often, so there is always something new to look at and read, in between when the actual magazine is out for sale. The layout and design of the magazine is appealing, as the background is pink and girlie, and theres images and colour and bold texts everywhere on the page. Pictures of celebrities, such as Kate Moss, Kate Winslet and Girls Aloud on the front page also appeal, as the link you make between the celebrities and the aspiration to follow in their footsteps and achievemtents. The interactivity of the website also appealed to me, as there are forums and areas which you can post your stroies, questions and problems, and seek the advice of people the same age as you who have gone through similar things. The website is really easy to navigate, and i think this adds to the attraction as you can easily find your way arounf the various pages. The different sections, such as hair and beauty and fashion also appeal, as I am interested in these things so I like to read about them.

Bruns - C - towards produsage.

In my opinion, I think that produsage will last. We live in an ever increasing technological world, and I can't see things regressing and going back to how they once were before. Boundaries are trying to be pushed, audiences are trying to be more involved, and I think it will continue like this. The public are encouraged to have an active role over the internet, whether its producing things to put online and share their ideas, or be part of a virtual community or forum. The main aim, as mentioned in my last post, it to attract and obtain a large audience and group of participants, and as long as produsage still exists, I can't see a decline in the audiences at all. I think its here for keeps. What do you all think? Comment me if you want to discuss =)

Bruns -B. - towards produsage.

I think the idea of no limitations and complete control discussed in my previous post regarding produsers and produsage isn't entirely true and can be critised, due to the amount of moderations and admin controls on the internet. Turkles idea that the internet allows you to have complete freedom is therefore gone against completely, with Burns arguing that "there needs to be a balance between openness and structure for the sites to work". Personally, I don't think having moderations on sites completely defeats the purpose of "produsers" and "produsage" as there is still a really high amount of control possessed by the individual, especially if you think of the lack of freedom in other medium forms like television, magazines and the radio. I think some moderation is needed, as the main focus is to get a large audience and group of participants, and although there are limitations, such as design and layout, enforcing boundaries, frameworks and guidlines is a good thing.

Bruns - A. - towards produsage.

The term "produser" refers to someone who is a user and a producer of the internet. From the term "produser" I pulled out the idea that there are no limitations of what an individual can do online, they can partake in an active and passive role, in constructing and consuming the media. People now have the power to recieve messages and respond to them, as well as create their own ideas and opinions how they wish to. Like alot of topics and discussions on this unit, this links to the idea of the internet being an open architecture where anyone can build and create their material on.
"Proudusage" also ties in with the notion of produsers, yet again with members of the public holding power over what they do online. Bruns describes the term ‘produsage’ as ‘the collaborative, iterative, and user-led production of content by participants in a hybrid user-producer, or produser role’. The idea of this explores the way produsers can produce things themseleves, led by themselves, for example, Wikipedia, which anyone can access and anyone can update or change. Both of the terms "produsage" and "produser" contain a high amount of power held by the individiual/public, compared to other media forms such as print broadcast, television and film.
The term intercreativity largely talks about the "mode of collaborative, productive engagement with content". This idea shows the concept of providing a "base" or a starting point for the expansion of produsage, and the produsers are having more freedom to create and work with. These terms really do give a greater understanding of collaborative creations online, although as Burns mentions, the amount of control which is assumed from these terms isnt really that high, as there are guidlines and frameworks within.

Meikle F

I do think that the internet can create and form new media institutions, as the internet is a place where everyone is pretty much equal. Theres no real sense of hierarchy or people being above each other. There is no limitations to who can post online, it doesn't matter how clever you are, what qualifications or grades you have, the internet is available for anyone to fill with their personal opinions and stories.

Meikle E

I don't think news can be completely open. Its virtually impossible for all sides of the story to be covered in one report, so a level of bias and person opinion of course will come into it. Different companies broadcast and report on stories in completely different manners, so I don't think the news can ever be 100% open.

Meikle D

Is open news quality news? I think this depends on the reporter, site and contents to be honest. I don't think you can give a straigh forward "yes" or "no" as more comes into it than that.

Meikle c

c) Personally I don't think that DIY newsmakers should be classed as being part of an alternative culture, as in theory they are basically doing what all journalists do ... report a story, though theres are based online rather that print and television broadcast. There is differences, for exaple online journalists can easily change what they say, and update stories alot quicker, but I wouldn't say they are part of an alternative culture as such.

Meikle a&b

a) The internet had a vast variety of writers and journalists, changing the conventions of news, and how we know it as a print or television broadcast. The internet takes away the high register that the news possess, due to the fact that pretty much anyone can write something online and publish it.

b) The internet has created a new place for anyone to have their say. Once again touching on the idea of the internet being seen as an "open architecture", pretty much anyone, qualified or unqualified can post and report their stories and images online, even if they don't have the authority to be delevering the news to us. People can become journalists to themselves.

Week 4 - topic 3; Online Music.

Online music is a really effective way to promote music and raise awareness of your band. I know many people who have gained so many fans or managed to get themselves out there using MySpace and other music forums etc online.

Websites such as myspace or youtube allow people to access and stream music for free. Not only does this benefit the public, but it gives bands and singers free ways to publicise themselves and get people interested in them. Itunes can be used to download (legally with a charge) music whuch you may not be able to find in the shops, specialist music appealing to a niche market perhaps.

The consumption of music is so high these days, thanks to online resourses its so much easier for it to be accessed and available.

Week 4- topic 2!

To me, in a way I would class social networking sites as communities. One I have involvement in is Facebook, and I use it for a a few different reasons. I'd say it can be seen as a community because we often use it for group emailing, threads and to communicate about academic things, much like we would use a forum. I wouldn't say I feel a sense of community using facebook, but the conventions could make it feel as if you are part of a community. For example, fan pages for films, book, tv programmes and bands could be seen as virtual communities, as everyone is part of the group for a reason, the same reason. The same applies for MySpace. Althoug it is very similar to facebook in the way it is mainly used to talk to friends and people you know in real life, MySpace is known for its mucic promotions, giving bands and singers the chance to gain an audience and a fanbase, and being part of this online fanbase, to me, could be seen as a community, as once again you are part of a group for a reason, to support the band.

"community is in the eye of the users?"

I think this is probably quite true. Many theorists have their own views on what makes up a community and what requirements are needed for a community, but when it comes down to it, surely its the individuals view that counts? I think the whole issue of sense of community can be percieved differently by different people, to one person on a particular forum they may see it just as a forum, but to someone else, it may be their community and mean something different to them. At the end of the day, the way we consume new media nowdays is much more actively, we are pretty much in conrtol when it comes to how we feel about virtual community and online resourses, so yes, it is in the eye of the users =)

Identifying a sense of community (week 4 - task 2 - part one!)

"The term “virtual community” is used quite frequently. Some definitions of virtual community have become so broad that they essentially refer to any CMC group (Bieber, Engelbart, Furuta, & Hiltz, 2002; Evans, Wedande, Ralston, & van 't Hul, 2001; Falk, 1999; Kardaras, Karakostas, & Papathanassiou, 2003)"

What makes a virtual community? This is something which is dicussed quite alot in the extract, providing an interesting read. According to Jones, the "virtual settlement" has to be understood, the postings, structure and content. Blanchard and Markus (2003) note that a sense of comminity is neccessary for a virtual community, being an important characteristic. It is the sense of community which distinguishes a virtual community from mere virtual groups.
I think virtual settlement is quite a useful concept, as on the Blanchard reading is seems to have helped give theorists a better understanding of virtual communities. Virtual settlement allows a difference to be made between virtual communities and normal online groups.

Personally, I don't really get myself involved with virtual communities, so the notion of "sense of community" is something I have rarely come across or experienced myself. Af ew years ago I signed up to the Reading Festival forums, and I guess in a way this gave me a SOC , as the topics discussed were relevant to the music and the event. I wouldn't say I felt a strong sense of community, as I rarely posted, but the involvement with like minded people does make you feel part of a group, whether or not i felt part of a virtual community is a different matter. A belonging? I didn'y really feel like I belonged to the group or had any sepcial sort of memebership, it was merely just a place to check updates and discuss what bands we want to see. To an extent I guess there was a shared emotion, a shared feeling, as everyone was there for the same reason. Everyone was signed up to the forum because they were attending the festival. There wasnt really any sense of relationship of a shared history, more like discussions over memories and experiences.

Week 4 - Topic 1.

A) p. 174 What do you think of the notion that online community can be empowering/disempowering?

-I'd say the notion that an online community can be empowering/disempowering is down to the individual. For people who perhaps live far away from people, or suffer from an illness which prevents them from getting out and about, I can see why, to them. that online communities can be empowering.
I also think they can be disempowering, as people can become socially excluded, distancing themselved away from reality and real life swocial situations, and using the internet to be part of a community instead.

B) p. 177 Does the Net provide a ‘public sphere’ where citizens can engage with each other? If so, how, and are there any limitations?

-It can be seen that the intenet provides a "public sphere", where people can virtually communcate and share ideas, thoughts and opinions in one place. Although this might seem a good thing, theres alot of down sides, such as online stalking, abuse and identity fraud, and the prevention of this is pretty limited.

C) p. 181 To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What do their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?

-Not everything on the internet is good, as mentioned in many of my recent blogs. Kollock uses the term "junk and jerks" which refers to people who purposely use the internet to cause trouble and a distraction. Their existence kind of shows that the internet is an open field, with room and space for anyone. I think this is quite evident that freedom isn't always positive, as theres always things we would rather not see.

D) p. 184-5 To what extent can ‘ordinary’ Net users become producers of culture, rather than people who ‘respond’ to culture supplied for them?

- I think this point can be linked to the idea of the internet as being an open field, an open architecture (recently discussed in previous blog), a place where just about anyone can build upon. We are supplied with this open canvas, chatrooms, social networking sites and forums, which as the basics we need to produce culture ourselves. The consumption of the internet is active, not passive. Rather than just respond to what is already out there, we have the chance to produce what we want, build on what we want.

Week 3 topic 3 (c,d&e)

C) p. 167 What do you think of postmodern views which stress the fluidity of online selves and their apparent disembodied status, which has been argued frees people from being represented through signs of their race, gender, class etc?
- Online, using forums and blogs and chatrooms, unless you have a photo of yourself, people at the other end cannot physically see you. Rather than be judged on your race, gender or class, the focus of primarily on your personality and writing, or the persona you create. You're identity doesn't have to be fixed. You don't need to let people know what you look like, or your social status. You are in control.


D) p. 168 Do cyberidentities constitute an alternative to ‘normal social reality’?
- Cyberidentities allow you to be who you want to be. People can easily escape from the realy identity and live a fantasy, being someone you are not.“...represent a retreat from, or an alternative to social reality” (Lister et al. 2003; 168).


E) p 170 Are online relationships the same as offline ones?
- Personally, I think no, online and offline relationships are not the same. How can they be? There are some similarities in the way that you are communicating on an in depth level, but the conventions differ greatly. With online relationships everything is done "behind closed doors" "hidden behind a screen". You can't see facial expressions, conversations are limited and not as instant as in a face-to-face situation, theres no physical contact. Some people may find it easier to talk online, as they can take their time to reply, not have to deal with awkward silences or veing face to face with someone if they are shy, but you can't see the other person. Communicating through the internet and typing doesn't allow you to recognise the register, the tone of the message. Its unpersonal. I do find it easy talking to people online, taking my own pace and not having to give the conversation my full attention, but I think online and offline relations differ quite alot really.

Week 3 - topic 3 (a&b)

TOPIC 1 wk 3
Respond to some of the points raised in the reading, Lister et al pp. 164-72 and/or in the recommended readings.
Identify and raise any issues yourself by making a post.
Cite the page number of Lister so others can see what’s written.

Some questions from me:

A) p. 164 In what ways can the Net be thought of as an ‘open architecture?’
- The internet is an "open" space, and new tecnhnologies are developments are contalntly being built in the space.

B) p. 166 Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?
-By having an online persona, it is possible that it doesn't match your real one. People experiment with themselves online, change who they are and how they are percieved.

“We can experiment with other parts of ourselves, take risks or express aspects of self that we find impossible to live out in day-to-day ‘meatspace’” (Bolter and Grusin cited in Lister et al, 2003;167)

People often use the internet as an escapism, a way of getting away from there everyday life and living up to a fantasy, taking risks and doing things they wouldn't normally do.

Week 3 - topic 2.

A) Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?
- I have mixed opinions about this one. I think withholding or hiding your identity online is fine, as long as you aren't pretending to be someone you are not. As long as you aren't pusposley changing who you are, or trying to manipulate people online on a personal level, I don't see a massive problem with this.

B) Should we always use our full name?
- I don't think it is neccessary to use our full names when using online forums, blogs, chatrooms etc. I think it is up to the individual whether they reveal there full name or not, but I don't think we should have to at all. For the sake of privacy, I sometimes think it's best not to, as theres clever people out there, and with knowledge of your full name they could attempt to track you on the internet, leading into all types of problems.

C) Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
- I think this is pretty true yes. Specialst forums are designed so you cam communicate and talk to people with a similar interest. For example, people who are into a niche market, such as comics or a particular type of music or band sign up to the available forums with the intentions of communicating with people who are htere for the same reaosn as them - because of their interest in the particlar field.

D)What kinds of risk are involved in online self-expression? Online relationships?
- I don't agree with online relationships. How do you know that the person you are talking to is genuine? How do you know that the photos they post are actually them? The person they say they are is actually who they are? You don't. Fair enough, in some cases online relationships can be a success, but only if you actually meet the person. But thats a bad idea in itself. I don't personally see the appeal. Yeah, okay, so your Mr.Perfect may be out there online somewhere, but for every nice person theres probably millions of not so nice ones. Its just too much of a risk to take.

E) If you are participating in online social interaction might you shape your identity and expression to ‘fit’ that group?
- I wouldn't myself, but I can see why people would/do. Online, you can be who you want to be. I can understand that people with self confidence issues or low self esteem might alter themselves to make them feel better, or just for the adreneline of being someone else. It's like a fantasy world, make belief, not real. Personally I'd rather be myself and not conform to changing myself to be like others, but it happens, and I can understand why.

Virtual communities.

The notion of virtual communities differs quite greatly from "real" communication.

Community is basically a network of relationships, and it would seem that more and more people use the internet for these. With online communities, individuals can talk to a number of people at one time, building relations via the computer, without really knowing the reciever at all.

Virtual communities- good vs the bad?

Personally, I think the overall effects and impact of online communities is negative, as they "encourage disengagement from real communities". Although for the sake of communicating, virtual communities bring positvity, the use of virtual communitites isn't suffieicent enough for any real kind of relationship. I really don't think that a substainable relationship or frienship can be "real" or "true" if only expressed via the internet. Virtual communities bring a lack of validity to the internet, we don't know that the people we are talking to are "true" and its not reality, its just not real. Well, thats what I think anyway.

On the other hand, I can see why people use online virtual communitites as they are beneficial to people who have confidence issues and wish to stay in touch with friends and family, as using the internet is convinient. I understand how for some people it suits them more to use the internet as an aid of communication, especially in todyas world when we are contantly being offered new technologies.

"Information wants to be free" (Stuart Brand - founding member of The Well). Reading this quote, I pulled out the idea that online communities are neither controlled or restricted, it is entirely in the hands of the individual to say what they wish. Quite a lot of intensive work and research has been carried out into the field of virtual communities, as this New Media offers us something completely different, altenative and interesting.

"Castells argues that the internet is the most appropriate medium of communication in an emerging network society (1998) and that it will play an increasingly important role, not only in the way that people choose to communicate with each other but also in the way we form social relationships"(http://www.whb.co.uk/socialissues/vol2ke.htm)

This quote I found from the internet supports the notion of online identites, suggesting that they are on the rise. I find it quite worrying that it is suggested that virtual communities not only play a role in how we communicate, but the way in which we form social relationships. I don't think virtual communities should obtain such power. I think physical eye-to-eye contact is a much healthier and important way of constucting relationships, we shouldn't rely on technology to do this for us.

Online identity and privacy.

After reading other peoples posts it really made me think about the issue of online identity.

On the one hand, online identity brings such an air of negativity, as it is so easy to fake the person you are, pretend to be someone else and hide your true self. There are always numerous reports of how people trick others into thinking they are someone else, and by the time their true identity is revealed, it's too late. Although social networking sites such as facebook, bebo and myspace are brillinat for keeping in contact with friends and family and a way of communicating, there are many issues which arise with them

The internet = big brother?
I also think the internet acts as a 'big brother' more than ever these days. It's so easy to stalk and spy on people by looking at their social networking page or searching for their name on google. For example, so many people have lost jobs because of what their bosses have seen or read on their profile page. I think this is a bad thing, as its almost like we have zero privacy, and what you post on the internet is like treading on glass - it can really damage you.

Saying this, the 'big brother' effect can be good! It can help. For example, a shop in the company I work for at home was ram-raided before christmas and thousands of pounds worth of fragrances were stolen, and there was no cctv footage or evidence over who broke in. A few weeks later, the boss of the store was linked to a facebook profile of locals from the town, selling fragrances on the cheap. The stuff they were selling matched the ones which were stolen from the shop, and the dates of the break in and profile matched up. Although this is just one example, it does show that the non privacy of the internet can work out to be good.

New Media- what it means to me.

My phone broke this week, it was tragic. It made me realise how important new media technologies actually are. I was phoneless for a godo three days, and it really effected my mood! It sounds stupid, but it made me realise how much we depends on technology and the difference it makes in our lives. You don't appreciate it half as much until its gone! I felt really cut off from communication, although there are other forms! I thought I'd share this as it sort of relates to the topic...kind of.