#jacksonkeith

Think back to your early memories of television. What kind of role did it play in your life? What place did it have within your family and social life? For instance, were there certain shows that everyone would gather round to watch? There may have been shows that you would discuss with friends the day after each episode, to offer opinions, reminisce the fun or excitement, and debate what the next episode might entail. To some extent, we all (hopefully) remember the televisual experience before the arrival of Web 2.0 - a time when the only way you could watch any desired show was to tune in whenever it was scheduled, and if you missed it: too bad. Now consider the way you watch television today.

We, as consumers of televisual content in the modern age, are faced with a myriad of new ways to catch our favourite shows, interact with other fans, and even interact with the shows themselves. One of the most important facts is that we no longer have to submit to the scheduling made by television stations. We can access the same content in an instant from various sources: torrenting sites (illegally), catch-up sites dedicated to those who missed a scheduled show they wished to see (such as ABC iView, Plus7, etc), or buying/renting online (through apps like iTunes). These new affordances have led some to suggest that we now live in the ‘post-broadcast’ or ‘post network’ era. (Bruns 2013, 238)

The flip side to this coin is the change brought about by social media - where viewing of scheduled shows becomes a social activity undertaken by potentially millions of viewers in real time, all connected to each other via the internet. This is facilitated by social media sites such as Twitter, which allows viewers to post comments in certain ‘threads’ relating to a particular show, creating a virtual, communal conversation that occurs during the show. “Each user can engage in a running commentary or conversation on what they are seeing ... as it happens on their television screen.” (Bruns 2013, 240) Where once we had a lounge room with maybe a few family members or friends watching a show together, we now have a ‘virtual lounge room’ with the potential to include the entire world. (Bruns 2013, 241)

Check out this short video, which gives an quick but informative look into the world of ‘Social TV’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA--f052lvw

Personally I’ve never really been a part of one of these virtual lounge rooms, mainly because I've just never delved into Twitter, but I think it’s a fantastic way for audiences to connect with one another in a way they never could. I can also really see the appeal in it, because while I don't watch a great deal of television shows, when I do I always enjoy the realisation that many people all across the country are doing exactly the same. So being able to connect with them as the show unfolds seems like a bit of a gift. Bruns (2013) discusses how social media has become a complimentary element to scheduled television - used for voting in competitive shows like The Voice, or for people to have their opinions shown on screen (such as in ABC's Q&A) to name a couple. I agree with him, and don't think that scheduled television is going to be replaced by other methods of consumption anytime soon.

References:

Bruns, A. 2013. “Chapter 18 :Tweeting About the Telly: Live TV, Audiences, and Social Media.” In Twitter and Society, edited by A. Bruns and Katrin Weller, 237-248. New York: Peter Lang.

Reuters TV. 2012. “Social TV: The future of television?” Youtube video, posted January 3. Accessed May 8, 2014.

There is no doubt that new media have revolutionised our lives personally, socially and economically, and continue to do so. They have revolutionised the way we can interact with one another, they have revolutionised the way economies can create capital... Many are arguing that new media have even revolutionised the revolution.

But what is meant by this claim? The answer is summed up pretty nicely by Clay Shirky (2011) in his article for Foreign Affairs: “The Political Power of Social Media”, when he explains “the networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action.” Basically, due to the advent of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, any ordinary person is able to voice their concerns or discontent in relation to political situations, regimes, and anything of the sort. This has had a profound effect on the way activists rally others to their cause, and the way these groups then organise and strive for change.

Many people see the affordances of social media to social activism as a positive development, able to easily connect large numbers of people with just the click of a button. It also means that organisation and coordination among these people becomes significantly easier. Some of you may have heard of the term Twitter Revolution, which is used to describe a number of recent situations in which social media sites - predominantly Twitter - were used by citizens on a mass scale to raise awareness and create protest against political situations or regimes, such as Moldova’s communist government in 2009. These alleged Twitter Revolutions are clear examples of the way social media can be utilised by ordinary citizens to bring about political change by placing pressure on those responsible. (Gladwell, 2010)

However, many are of the belief that social media do not have as strong an impact on these situations - or at least, that they are not revolutionising social activism as we are led to believe. For example, in the case of the 2009 Moldovan protests, Evgeny Morozov points out that very few Moldovan citizens actually had Twitter accounts, and that Twitter overall had very little impact. In a similar case that occurred in Iran, he explains how almost all of the so-called activists tweeting about the protests were in fact in Western society, far from the actual events taking place. Esfandairi, writing for Foreign Policy, even claimed that there “was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran”. (Gladwell, 2010)

One of the most prominent criticisms of social media as a platform for social activism is that they are built around ‘weak ties’. (Gladwell, 2010). I’m sure we all understand what that means - on Twitter you can follow or be followed by people you’ve never met, and on Facebook it’s likely that many of your friends are people you don’t actually speak to face to face. These aspects can be great when simply regarding your daily life, but when it comes to social activism it becomes clear why social media may not be such a positive change and can’t be seen as a substitute.

By comparing social activist movements of today with those of, say, the 60s, we can easily see the difference between their organisation and conduct. Before the existence of such things as social media or even the internet, activists had no choice but to meet face-to-face to discuss their movements. Knowledge of these movements passed by word of mouth. Due to this, it was much more likely for members of these groups to have friends and possibly even family with them - this was known as a ‘strong tie’ phenomenon, as opposed to the weak tie connections commonly found today. (Gladwell, 2010)

Activism back then was commonly very high risk, such as racial equality protests. One of the most famous began with four black men now known as the Greensboro Four, who challenged the law of segregation at the lunch bar of their local Woolworth’s in North Carolina. Word of their small protest spread rapidly, and within a week they were joined by some 600 supporters. Other protests began across the state, then across the borders, and became a “civil rights war that engulfed the South for a decade”. (Gladwell, 2010). This all occurred without the use of new media.

Fast forward to the present day, and the concept of social activism is greatly changed. Social media has made it possible to become part of protests from the comfort of your home, even anonymously. Due to the weak tie structure of such campaigns, your incentive to join is commonly social acknowledgment and praise, at very little cost. These campaigns generally involve little to no financial cost, are very rarely high risk, and often don’t require any physical effort. This increases participation more than before, but there is a lack of organisation. These can be seen as networks, rather than the generally hierarchical organisations seen previously. An example is the “Stop Kony” campaign, dedicated to causing the arrest of African militia leader Joseph Kony. Those behind the campaign created a video titled “Kony 2012”, which went viral. This created a frenzy on social media sites, especially Facebook. While it raised awareness easily, its weak-tie structure meant that it was much less likely for people to become radicalised and very little was achieved. This humorous satire shows the way that anyone can show support at little expense or risk, while achieving very little.

References:

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. “Small Change”. The New Yorker, October 4. Accessed April 28, 2014.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Invisible Children. 2012. “Kony 2012”. Youtube video, posted March 5. Accessed May 1, 2014.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

Shirky, Clay. 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media”. Foreign Affairs, January. Accessed April 28, 2014.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media

Psychicpebbles. 2012. “Shorts - Kony2012”. Youtube video, posted March 23. Accessed May 1, 2014.

There is no doubt that new media technologies are changing the way we interact with one another socially. People are generally spending less and less time engaging in face-to-face discourse, instead opting for the attractive alternative - mediated conversation. This allows individuals to interact with one another almost instantly across any distance, thereby diminishing the need to meet in person. Naomi Baron (2008, 7) explains how this has resulted in what she terms “the end of anticipation”, where “we no longer await the return of family and friends to share in their stories.” This new way of interacting has not only altered our social norms, however. All of this time spent sending electronic messages (whether through emailing, texting, or social media such as Facebook) is evolving our written - and therefore spoken - language.

There is ardent debate as to the reality of the situation - many argue that these new technologies are detrimental to our established language, citing evidence of poor spelling, punctuation, and general quality of writing associated with such media. Others however, posit that we are actually strengthening our language by expanding our writing techniques. (Baron 2008, 5). I recently watched an intriguing TED talk by linguist and political commentator John McWhorter, titled “Txtng is killing language. JK!!!”, where he presents a very favourable view of these changes we are seeing. McWhorter begins by explaining that texting (which we can also apply to netspeak) is not actually ‘writing’, but rather ‘fingered speech’ (TED, 2013). He points out that, while texting requires ‘writing’ in a physical sense, we are in fact having conversations as we would face-to-face. This has been made possible by the instantaneous nature of texting. He supports this theory by describing how netspeak terms such as “lol” have become just another example of what linguists call “pragmatic particles” - expressions of empathy and accommodation found in any spoken dialect, such as words like “yo” (TED, 2013).

McWhorter draws comparisons to concerns that academics have displayed over the poor writing skills of youths throughout history - all the way back to 63AD, when one man expressed worry of the misuse of Latin, which would become the French language. He also explains how texting (and therefore netspeak) is not replacing, but rather being developed alongside ordinary writing skills, resulting in our becoming “bi-dialectal”, expanding our “linguistic repertoire”. (TED, 2013)

I found McWhorter’s talk fascinating, being the first in-depth examination I’ve seen of how netspeak can actually be a beneficial development, strengthening our language rather than ruining it. It is still our responsibility however, to maintain this bi-dialectic status. After all, one kind of writing is appropriate when the other is not, yo.

References:

Baron, Naomi. 2008. Always on : language in an online and mobile world. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design). 2013. “John McWhorter: Txtng is killing language. JK!!!” Youtube video, posted April 22. Accessed April 9, 2014.

The culture of fandom has been forever changed since the advent of new media such as Web 2.0. Gone are the days when fans would simply act as consumers, for now they have been provided with a remarkable potential - the ability to become participatory producers of the content they love. Arguably the best examples of the different ways in which this can occur, are the strategies of George Lucas and Peter Jackson, with their respective franchises “Star Wars” and “Lord of the Rings”.

These two franchises both have films ranking within the top 20 highest grossing of all time (Box Office Mojo. n.d.), and both franchises have among the largest fan bases to date (Vulture Lists, 2012). While they share these things in common, the directors of the films in each franchise chose significantly different approaches when interacting with and involving their fans.

It’s important to understand that the two directors are in very different positions in relation to the content they are working with, and (to a certain degree) this surely influences the way they interact with fans, and the level to which they allow fan participation. For instance, George Lucas created the Star Wars franchise himself, rather than Peter Jackson who adapted the Lord of the Rings from the 1954-55 series of fantasy epics written by J.R.R Tolkein, of which he was a fan (Shefrin. 2007). Additionally, many of you will know that Star Wars first emerged on screens in 1977 (finally concluding in 2005 after a 16 year hiatus between 1983 and 1999), while the Lord of the Rings didn’t arrive until 2001. Ergo, Lucas was already an established director by this time (and a legendary one at that), but Jackson was a new face in the Hollywood scene.

In relation to their interactions with online fans, Lucas has received mostly criticism while Jackson has received mostly praise (Shefrin. 2007). Basically, Jackson emphasised the notion of ‘shared ownership’ with fans by consulting them (via sites such as Ain’t It Cool News) regarding things like production decisions, whereas Lucas (apparently in response to Jackson’s example) generally ignored this kind of input, and even discredited many such attempts. It can be said that Peter Jackson, by fulfilling fans’ “desires to be “consumer affiliates”” (Shefrin. 2007) throughout the whole production, valued increasing his symbolic capital. George Lucas however, can be seen as valuing increasing his economic capital.

Whatever the reasons for the two directors’ differing approaches to interacting with fans, both examples show how the world of fandom has changed. More than ever before, fans are able to become involved in productions of the content they love, even to the point where they can work with a director to help shape the final product. On the other hand, this also means fans can be exploited by producers who wish to increase their economic capital, without even letting fans truly participate.

Here are the links to the official “Star Wars” website, and the official “Lord of the Rings” website, where online participatory fandom takes place.

Reference List:

Box Office Mojo. n.d. “All time box office - Worldwide grosses.” Accessed March 30, 2014.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

Shefrin, Elana. 2007. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and participatory fandom: mapping new congruencies between the internet and media entertainment culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21, (3): 261-281. Accessed March 29, 2014. doi: 10.1080/0739318042000212729.

Vulture Lists. 2012. “The 25 most devoted fan bases.” Accessed April 1, 2014.

Following the introduction of Web 2.0 around the turn of the century, there has been dramatic evolution involving the way people can interact with one another over the internet. One such aspect of this is the rise of online communities, which are part of what we now define as ‘hybrid economies’.

Firstly, what are these hybrid economies? How do they operate, and who is positioned to gain from them? These questions are answered in depth in Lawrence Lessig’s 2008 book “Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy.” Lessig explains that “The hybrid is either a commercial entity that aims to leverage value from a sharing economy, or it is a sharing economy that builds a commercial entity to better support its sharing aims. Either way, the hybrid links two simpler, or purer, economies, and produces something from the link.” (Lessig 2008, 177). Generally, these hybrids are beneficial for both the producers and the consumers.

While these sites are not established with the intention of making money, generally there has to be a strategy in place for them to make enough revenue to endure, or if desired, expand. There are many ways in which this can be achieved - for example, many sites such as Youtube, Wiki sites, and Craigslist (all sites with differing purposes), allow advertisements to appear on their pages. This simple strategy is an effective way to ensure enough revenue is generated for the particular site to sustain itself. In doing so, they continue to facilitate the services of community sharing. Hence they are known as ‘hybrid economies’ as they are an amalgamation of a sharing economy with a commercial entity.

Some models of hybrid economies result in what is known as an ‘online community’. This means that people from (potentially) all over the world can interact with one another on sites dedicated to a common interest, ideal, or goals that they may share. Forms of interaction range from anything including sharing information and knowledge (suck as Wikipedia and wikis), sharing self-made media (such as photos on sites like Flickr, and videos on sites like Youtube), or being part of virtual communities which aim to resemble real-life communities (such as Second Life).

Arguably, the need for hybrid economies (in the case of sharing economies) was made clear in 2000 by the story of teenager Heather Lawver and her online newspaper “The Daily Prophet”. The newspaper was intended as “an effort to explain and extend the story given to her generation by the extraordinary author J. K. Rowling.” (Lessig 2008, 206), this is of course referring to the fantasy series “Harry Potter”. Basically, Heather found herself in conflict with Warner Bros. Studios, who felt it their “legal obligation to police sites that emerged around their properties.” (Lessig 2008, 207), thus beginning what became known as “The Potter Wars”. Heather rallied her supporters (who were many) to help her demonstrate to Warner Bros. that fans were a major source of revenue for them, and restricting the sharing economy of these fans would therefore restrict the company’s revenue. Thus, a hybrid economy was born in which Warner granted fans greater freedom with their property - hence increasing their own return.

References: