Week 11 – Final Project March 19, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Uncategorized.add a comment
Please see my website for my final project for COM 546 Evolution and Trends in Digital Media Technologies from the University of Washington’s Masters in Communication in Digital Media.
Non-profit Communication Using Technology
>
Week 8 – Reading Reflection Questions – Feb. 24, 2009 February 22, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Reading Reflection.add a comment
1. In the Afterward of The Media Monopoly, Bagdikian states that
“Television produced a radical transformation in the way American families arranged their lives.” How is this different from how mass radio changed people’s lives?
2. Will websites ever have the requirement to “act in the public interest” like television stations do? Is it possible?
3. Have attitudes changed toward archiving of media, now that media has become more electronic and thus more ephemeral? Is it necessary?
Week 7 – Reading Reflection Essay – Feb. 17, 2008 February 17, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Assignment, Reading Reflection.Tags: Internet, New York Times, The end of the internet, Tragedy of the Commons
2 comments
“The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” is an article about the dangers of human over-population. Hardin uses a metaphor of a common land used by farmers. As soon as one farmer adds more sheep to this common land, it affects the community. If farmers keep adding sheep, then the commons cannot be sustained.
The “commons” as Hardin explains, is the communal space that we all occupy. To keep the commons from failure, everyone should feel responsible for maintaining this space. Everyone should sacrifice to keep the commons from being overrun. They should also be conscious of their own actions and how their actions affect others. Because the commons is a finite resource, if everyone acts selfishly it will doom the community to failure. But inevitably someone will act in their self-interest and the commons will be overrun. In addition, our society is built upon personal freedoms, which run against the requirements of maintaining the commons. There is no technical solution to this problem or “the tragedy” of the commons.
This metaphor can be applied to many other societal issues. Listed below are two examples: 1) smoking in public places and 2) internet security.
Thank You for Not Smoking
As a society we believe in responsibilities and in certain rights and freedoms, but it gets a complicated when the action becomes more personal. Smoking is an example of an individual action that affects the community. Until recently, smoking was often cast as a personal choice that only affected the smoker and their pocketbook, when in reality smoking affects everyone around the smoker as well… not only with the unpleasant smell, but the amount it costs a society in health care bills from the second-hand smoke, decreased worker productivity (because of illness and death), and government regulation (How much should a pack of cigarettes be taxed? Who should be allowed to smoke? Where can cigarettes be sold?, etc.)
In this case the commons is being used as a trash can, so gradually legislation has been passed to ban smoking in many public spaces, thus reducing the effect of second-hand smoke on the community. In addition, cultural mores have changed so that it is no longer considered acceptable to smoke. However, these laws combined with societal disapproval, has denied someone’s freedom of choice. By adding in another law or another wall to the commons, personal freedom is encroached. However, the commons is better maintained.
A New Internet
The article “A New Internet” by John Markoff in this Sunday’s New York Times is about how the Internet is vulnerable to a malicious attack. Never built to carry the world’s communication and commerce, it was originally an academic and research network and expanded rapidly and haphazardly into this tremendous system. It never has had true security despite years of work on the issue. The current method of security is to create strong firewalls, but little else. Unfortunately, this allows an attacker to gain access to the “soft chewy center” once a firewall has been breached.
The alternate answer to this problem is to make a new Internet from scratch, one that is a world-wide “walled garden” of sorts, where a user would have to give up at least some of their anonymity for protection. Privacy, a dearly-held Internet (and American) belief, would have to be relinquished to a degree to have the network be secure. And that would be a big trade-off for many Internet users.
Here is another case where the commons (the Internet) might need to change and new rules and laws will have to be created (by removing anonymity) in order to keep it protected (from malicious attackers). But the change in laws goes against a strongly held belief system by the users (about online freedom.) Markoff argues that will be hard to change the legacy of libertarianism of the Internet before a devasting attack has occurred. Hardin would argue however, that this triumph of “freedom” will most assuredly bring about ruin. Only by seeing the necessity of mutual responsibility and benefit (he calls it “mutual-coercion”) by giving up our dearly-held privacy in this case will we become truly free.
Additional thoughts
A couple of additional thoughts on Hardin’s essay:
1. Hardin states that “education counteracts the natural tendency to do the wrong thing” (the “wrong thing” in this case being not being responsible to the commons.) There are plenty of well and/or over-educated people who believe that needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. For example, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations “invisible hand” theory (refuted by Hardin in this essay) states that decisions made by individuals will be the best decisions for an entire society… which goes against someone doing the “wrong” thing.
2. Hardin focuses exclusively on people and government’s roles in decision-making. He doesn’t include other influential relationships, such as peers, family and parents, religious organizations, and other societal groups and institutions (like, say, a motorcycle club) that might have authority with an individual. These relationships are also affected by the outcome of the commons.
++++++++++++++++
Hardin, G. (1968, Dec. 13) “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, 162 (3859), 1243-1248.
Markoff, J. (2009, Feb. 15). “A New Internet?”. The New York Times, pp. 1, 4.
Week 6 – Reading Reflection Questions – Feb. 10, 2008 – REDUX February 11, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Reading Reflection.add a comment
1. How is the government’s response to independent news different today from late 1820’s?
2. How similar is early radio broadcasting to today’s Twitter or blogging?
3. How has the expansion of the West in the United States affected the change in communication in the 1800’s?
Week 6 – Reading Reflection Questions – Feb. 10, 2008 February 10, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Reading Reflection.1 comment so far
Questions on Roger Fielder, “Technologies of the Third Media Mediamorphosis.”
1. My little pony (no, MY little pony)
Samuel Morse, along with two others, started the Journal of Commerce paper in 1827 to “cleanse New York of its moral impurities.” They came up with an innovative way of getting the news to Wall Street faster than any other news organization at the time by using ponies to gallup from Brooklyn to Manhattan. The US government forced them to give up their equine dispatchers because it “competed with a government mandated monopoly” or, in other words, it made the government look bad. And the government lost control of the news (and the message.)
Question - In the United States today, with everyone having up-to-minute news access and with journalism becoming hyper-local and out-of-control by the government, could something like this happen today? If a citizen journalist, like say, the West Seattle Blog, regularly scooped news that the government thought that they should be in control of, would they shut it down?
2. Early radio broadcasting
Fieldler says that prior to World War I, radio communication was considered primarily between two points or people though early ham radios operators did broadcast news and music without expectation of a reply.
Question – How similar is early radio broadcasting to Twitter or blogging?
3. Lewis & Clark expedition (extra credit rumination #1)
Question – I’m also interested in how the expansion of the West plays into the expansion of communication. We talk a lot about the railroad and telegraph because of the harnassing of electricity. What if we look even earlier to Lewis & Clark and what new technologies they brought on their trip (including having a universal translator of Sacajawea) ? Is there a direct correlation of the Lewis & Clark expedition and the drive towards coming up with faster ways to travel and communicate?
4. Ponies and Marshall McLuhan (extra credit rumination #2)
Question – What would McLuhan say about the medium of ponies? Is it a hot or cold medium? Would it be the extension of the foot or hands? Are they similar to railroads? Or to a laptop?
Week 5 – Reading Reflection Essay – Feb. 3, 2008 February 2, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Reading Reflection.Tags: archiving, communication, Marshall McLuhan, sexism, stenotype, Vannevar Bush
2 comments
Vannevar Bush’s “As We May Think” is a visionary article from 1946 that lay the groundwork for a variety of modern communication technology, most notably the World Wide Web (which he calls the memex) and search engines. He also describes a sort of electromagnetic strip (using electromagnetic paper) to replace film, a type of computer mouse, databases, spreadsheets, search engine optimization, scrolling (an important viewing construct in viewing and reading), voice recorders and mini-cameras for scientists.
I am interested in his description of being the reader or specialist being overwhelmed or “bogged down” by the massive amounts of information. Bush was also concerned that the “truly significant will be lost in the mass of the inconsequential.” Certainly in our contemporary times, this is even more of a problem, with out massive amounts of media. In fact, we can look to McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message” from 1964 and his concern about accelerated media change as a sort of ‘massacre of the innocents’ as comparably old news. Not only is important content being possibly missed, not only is it overwhelming to the user, but McLuhan’s theory would suggest that eventually the massive onslaught of content is ultimately a sort of dehumanizing death.
Another issue with the onslaught of information is how to archive it or organize it in some manageable way. Bush discusses the “voder” or a primitive voice recorder that he saw at a recent World Fair in the 40’s. He wonders if this technology is available, then why is the stenotype still being used at public meetings and in court? A stenotype is a machine that is a cross between a typewriter and a word processor (today’s versions are more like computers) (Wikipedia, 2009). A stenographer phonetically types in the words spoken. The print-out (today’s stenotypes don’t just print, but translate and store the transcript on a disk) is then either translated or refined on a computer. It’s much faster and quieter than a typewriter, hence it’s popularity.
But really, why is it being used today in court? A human typing what’s been spoken in a cavernous room (and the resulting re-translation) is much less accurate than a video camera (and gives rise to the comparision to Plato’s Cave story.) Human fallability being what it is, beyond the inevitable mis-communication, there just has to be numerous errors. Are there not better archival options?
Back to the archival question – at this point, online search is one of the best options for short-term archiving of data/content. But search only works as well as the items have been keyworded (or the company that owns the items has paid.) Archiving today is difficult with our ephermal data — photos that get deleted or never removed from their data source (the camera), millions of emails deleted or spammed, twitters lost (or else randomly optimized for search)…
(As an aside, I note the sexist references to the ubiquitous “girls” with mildly suggestive and somewhat robotic descriptions: 1. a “girl strokes” the Voder’s keys to input the voice data, 2. a “girl strokes its keys languidly and looks about the room and sometimes at the speaker with a disquieting gaze” while typing on a stenotype, and 3. in reference to a large calculating machine it would “take instructions and data from a roomful of girls armed with simple keyboard punches.”
The content has to be put into the machines by girls for the male scientists to analyze. Despite Bush’s prescience on the future of communications, it apparently didn’t extend to gender roles. Ah well.)
References:
Bush, V. (1945, July). “As We May Think.” Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194507/bush
Engber, W. (2005, May 25). “What’s That Thingy Court Reporters Type On?” Slate magaine. http://slate.com/id/2119534/
McLuhan, M. (1962) “The Medium Is The Message” from Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. In Ed. Wardip-Fruin, N. and Moatfort, N. The New Media Reader: MIT Press. (pp. 205-209)
“Stenotype”. In Wikipedia online. Retrived Feb. 2, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype
Week 4 – Discussion Group 1 – Post Class Reflection January 31, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Discussion Group.Tags: McLuhan, Media Theory
1 comment so far
I wanted to do my presentation on McLuhan’s “The Message is the Medium” because he is one of the founding father of media criticism. I wanted to see consider how his meta theory “The Medium is the Message” about technology (and big business) control would play out in today’s all-access, anyone-can-be-a-journalist Internet and I wanted to be challenged in my thought process.
McLuhan’s theory is difficult to both to interpret and explain. It is a big paradigm shift for these MCDM students, who are used to thinking that today’s media is automatically a good thing. It was fascinating to watch people’s eyes widen and brows furrow when they considered how technology might be controlling them and not the other way around.
Each group I presented had a different idea on McLuhan’s contemporary applicability — the first one thought McLuhan’s theory still had some relevance, the second one not at all, and the third thought it had as much relevance today as it did in the 60-70’s! I enjoyed the questions that came up — how related is his theory to Neil Postman’s? does the type of media also change the message? — and learned a few things from a couple of the other students. Also, I think everyone enjoyed the clip from “Annie Hall.”
Week 4 – Book Review – “Neuromancer” – Jan. 30, 2009 January 30, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Book Review.Tags: health care, Medicine, Neuromancer, William Gibson
1 comment so far
Neuromancer
BOOK REVIEW CITATION:
Gibson, W. (1994). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neuromancer and modern medicine
Neuromancer, by William Gibson and published in 1984, is considered the epitome of “cyberpunk” fiction. It is among the most-celebrated works of science fiction in recent history and won the three major science fiction awards – Hugo, Nebula, and Philip K. Dick – all in the same year. Neuromancer also appeared in 2005 on Time magazine’s list of 100 best English-language novels written since 1923, alongside such works as Virginia Wolf’s To the Lighthouse and Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. (Grossman & Lacayo, 2005)
Gibson gained fame from this novel not just as an author but also for his prescience and influence about the Internet (he is credited with inventing the word “cyberspace,” for example.) His novels predict a virtual cornucopia of new technology. In Neuromancer, the following technologies are references as a part of the plot. They have all either come to pass or have become normalized since its publication:
• Brain-powered artificial limbs
• Powerful computer viruses
• Magnetic pulse weapons
• Multiple organ transplant
• Plastic surgery accessibility
• Cornea transplants
• Sleeping “cube” hotels
• Christian fundamentalist terrorism
• Skin bronzer
• Drug dermapatches
And that’s the short list. Granted he also imagined things that have not yet happened: chemical engines, human-controlled hallucinogenic holograms, cranial “jacks” (where an individual can project themselves into cyberspace by way of a plug in their head), and iridescent, camouflage clothing. And there are things that he missed such as the development of large animal cloning, the end of Cold War relations, and the decline of the popularity of the video arcade.
In Neuromancer ‘s futurist world, a variety of medical advancements have come to pass. How are these changes been used today versus what Gibson predicted?
But first, a short(ish) summary of the book
Neuromancer, like most science fiction, has a very imaginative, complex and savagely bleak plot.
Neuromancer the character (his name is a play on the words “romance”, “neuro” and “necro”) is actually a late player in the book. He is an “AI”, or artificial intelligent being. He is actually one-half of larger entity. The other half is named Wintermute. Wintermute and Neuromancer were developed separately because together they would be tremendously powerful and therefore illegal.
Wintermute is the puppet-master of the book. In order to join with his other half, he brings together four human players:
• Case – The anti-hero of the book, he’s a druggie “cyberpunk” super web-surfer who had his special skill forcibly removed as punishment for stealing. He’s rescued by Armitage (see below), given back his ability, and cleaned up. He remains in debt and constantly under threat of losing his ability by Wintermute.
• Armitage/Corto – The manager of the team of people hired by Wintermute to find Neuromancer. An ex-army officer, he was blown literally to pieces in a special operations mission. He’s been put back together like Humpty-Dumpty and brain-washed by Wintermute.
• Molly – A hired gun, she has silver computerized lenses over her eyes and knives implanted under her fingernails. She and Case are in a romantic/sexual relationship.
• Riviera – A surgically-handsome, scheming psychopath with a special implanted skill – he can make people experience hallucinations – he and Case loathe each other. Also, he is another drug addict.
Under the direction (and manipulations) of Wintermute, this team works to “free” Neuromancer.
Medicine and Neuromancer
In this futuristic world, terrific medical advances have been made… but not necessarily for the greater-good. In addition, some human frailties have not disappeared.
Drugs on my brain
Drug addiction is a constant problem (again, three out of four of the main human characters are drug addicts.) Even with new, non-addicted organs, addicts like Case are still craving and looking to get high. And, as opposed to current cultural mores, cigarette smoking is accepted and rampant. Cancer exists. People still die of heart attacks. Painkillers are needed for injuries. Plastic surgery is the norm – physical perfection is no longer noteworthy. And, while there are now ways to accelerate healing, the body still needs time to heal in this world.
All of the main human characters in Neuromancer have been radically altered by medicine: Case received a new liver and central nervous system to restore his ability, Molly has her enhanced eyes and deadly fingers, Riviera with his implanted hologram skill and unreal, physically-altered beauty, and Armitage who has all-new nearly everything. These medical enhancements or repairs are there so that they can do their chosen careers better and earn more money and to get ahead. Doctors exist in this world, but only for hire. Hospitals are black clinics. And anything just for good like a non-profit organization exists not at all.
Most of these medical modifications the characters choose to have done to them actually end up dehumanizing them as individuals. The modifications can come with the inclusion of machinery – such as Molly’s implanted lenses – or restoring a natural ability like Case’s to surf the web using his consciousness, or changing a personality from one to another, such as the robotic Armitage. Riviera’s modification has made him into a magician or sort of wizard, making him not exactly human with all his surreal and freaky tricks.
In sum, medicine in Neuromancer is about vanity and opportunity and weakness and not healing or caring or curing. Comparably, while we certainly do have a lot of self-interest in our current world, there are also people like Dr. Paul Farmer in Mountains Beyond Mountains, trying to save the world. And most doctors are more altruistic than not and do not practice in back-alley dives.
References
Gibson, W. (1994). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.
Grossman, L. & Lacayo, R. (2005, Oct. 16) “Time’s Critics pick the 100 best novels 1923 to the present.” Time Magazine.
Kidder, T. (2003). Mountains beyond mountains. New York: Random House.
Week 4 – Discussion Group 1 Leader – Jan. 27, 2009 January 27, 2009
Posted by sunagurol in Discussion Group.Tags: business, Marshall McLuhan, Media Theory, society
13 comments
Written Analysis for Discussion Group One – Jan. 27, 2009
See the the PPT
Slideshare >
Bookmarks within this post:
- Marshal McLuhan’s “The Message is the Medium”
- Bowers & Christensen’s “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”
- Rogers’ “The Innovation-Decision Process”
- Discussion Questions
- References
- “Annie Hall” Film Clip
- Poll – Favorite Woody Allen movie??
________________________
Marshall McLuhan’s “The Message is the Medium”
The Message is the Medium
“The Message is the Medium” is one of the seminal works in media theory. McLuhan defined the electric light as “pure information”, being that nothing else is conveyed in this exchange. All other ways of media to convey information change the message. The medium, then becomes the message. And that message becomes a business and a commodity.
All media are extensions of some human faculty. For example, clothes is an extension of the skin, wheel is an extension of the foot, and computer circuitry is an extension of the human central nervous system. What other media extensions can you think of?
McLuhan is interested in the effect of technology on society and how the message is controlled. Technology demands that people to perform in uniform and continuous patterns (typing on a keyboard, for example.) It is dehumanizing.
McLuhan’s concern is that accelerated media change will lead to a sort of ‘massacre of the innocents.” Everyone has access to technology and they will be immediately put under its “spell” on contact. “Any media has the power of imposing its own assumption on the unwary.” In addition, technology, especially being on the edge of technology, is terrifying.
Bower & Christensen’s “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”
Catching the wave
Their article is about how companies can invest in future business with new technologies. Many companies’ spend too much effort on existing products, channels, customers and their organization’s process. They, consciously or not, ignore new ‘disruptive’ technologies. Disruptive technologies are usually also big business. Examples the author’s list include: Seagate with smaller hard drives, IBM with the personal computer, and Apple with the Newton PDA.
To avoid this, the authors have several recommendations for companies: 1) Let start-ups conduct the experiments with new technology, 2) be the second (not the first) company to invest in the new technology in a start-up, 3) if developed in-company, then isolate the development of a new product to a group away from the main office, and 4) keep it independent and do not bring it in-house.
Contrasting Christensen & Bower’s gung-ho attitude toward new technology with McLuhan who points out that it is terrifying for anyone (including businesses) to live on the edge of technology.
My research topic is on health and science non-profits and their involvement with social media. Scientific research, which is the bread & butter of these organizations, relies heavily on technology. McLuhan’s theory is that this level of technology will turn science into business.
Rogers’ “The Innovation-Decision Process”
The Innovation-Decision Making Process
Rogers has a five-step process (with multiple side and sub-steps) for innovative decision-making – knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation . This theory seems to work well with consumer choice. I wonder about how well it can be applied to innovation that does not involve purchasing anything. Would these steps work with a happy accident in innovation itself?
He has some interesting arguments about how innovation information is distributed to adoptees. Interpersonal and mass communication channels influence innovation adoptees. Rogers argues that Internet can replace the interpersonal communication channel.
Contrast this very compartmentalized and constructed business theory with McLuhan’s meta-theory. I would guess that McLuhan would say that e-mail is not interpersonal, but mass communication.
- Cave paintings and story-telling also can be said that the medium was the message. All information has always been conveyed depending on the medium AND the individual. How was it different in the modern world?
- McLuhan’s theory was also about how the message is controlled. Today, with everyone able to report ‘news’, is this theory still relevant?
- What would McLuhan’s view be of the Internet or social media?
Specifically, what would he think of Facebook? Flickr? YouTube? Online pornography?
Bower, J. & Christensen, C. (Jan/Feb. 1995). “Disruptive Technologies: Catching The Wave,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 43-53.
Digitalecologist. “The Message is the Medium.” [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from Slide Share Web site: http://www.slideshare.net/digitalecologist/mcluhan-review
Kenrg. (2006, Oct. 26). “Marshall McLuhan & YouTube?” [Film]. Video posted to YouTube Web site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7GvQdDQv8g
McLuhan, M. (1962) “The Medium Is The Message” from Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. In Ed. Wardip-Fruin, N. and Moatfort, N. The New Media Reader: MIT Press. (pp. 205-209)
Rogers, E. (2003). “Chapter 5 The Innovation-Decision Process”. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Yiasamatha, N. “Marshall McLuhan & the Internet.” Retrieved from Slide Share Web site: http://www.slideshare.net/ninanyc/marshall-mcluhan-the-internet-presentation
And now, for a little on the lighter side:
