#transversally

I believe that the video ‘The coalition of the willing’ made by Knife Party has a lot of good points when it comes to discussing transversal forms of collaborations. The Internet is an incredible tool and it can be used for so much more than Facebooking, trailer watching and fashion blogging. The video discusses Internet’s endless possibilities when it comes to engaging and creating together, and participating in the “new era of global collaborative culture”. The idea of open source culture, where thousands of individuals can contribute towards creating something spectacular (like Wikipedia), is a fantastic example of the type of work which completed by using the web as a platform. 

The video continues by saying how the world is networked like never before, and we can use the Internet to kickstart a revolution. It explains an imaginative social network with the purpose of connecting individuals with different projects, not just locally or nationally, but even globally. I do however believe that Reddit.com can be classified as this type of social network. Reddit is an incredible tool frequently used to spread news and stories, and engage people into issues, both political and simple human compassion. 

Jellis briefly argues how micropolitics requires an openness to being experimental. I think this is obvious in Reddit as well, as it is a great platform for experimenting with, and researching, people’s beliefs and behaviors. It can act as a base for testing people’s engagement and reactions to certain issues.

Douglas Rushkoff (2011) addresses the issues with the evolving web and its rapid increase in size and reach. I definitely think he has a point, but that he also underestimates the current power of the web. I think it would be impossible to start over and create something new in order to escape the interference from governments, we just can’t avoid the control they have over us. That's why we should optimise the use of the already existing networks, like Twitter and Reddit, and even Facebook.

Maybe the Internet isn't the best tool for organising, but it is definitely the best tool ever created in terms of spreading and sharing information and creating incredible awareness.

Knife Party and Rayner, Tim and Robson, Simon (2010) Coalition of the Willing < http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/ >.

Rushkoff, Douglas (2011) ‘The Evolution Will Be Socialized’, Shareable: Science and Tech < http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-evolution-will-be-socialized >

It’s common knowledge now that social media has truly transformed the power structures of society.  To relate back to last weeks concepts, traditionally politics has been heavily framed.  The act of governing a country has historically been for the elitists of society who determine what is best for all based on what is best for them.  Social media has facilitated a transversality which has cut through the structures of politics across the globe, resulting in the people having more power to hold those in ruling positions accountable. 

Now there are of course benefits of this, as can be seen through the Arab Spring uprising, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which acted as statement against the idea that political matters of importance are those only of value to the rentier class (Wark, 2011).  Social media removes the power structures which constrain the voices of the majority, whose opinions may be conflicting with those who hold the wealth and power.  Yet if we consider the impacts closer to home, the influence of new media may be somewhat questionable.  To my understanding, Australia is already a democratic nation, which has the potential to be governed well.  The problem as highlighted by Ellis (2010) is that the intensity of media today has resulted in politicians focusing more on media than actually running the country.  It seems the emphasis has been placed on short term political point scoring and no long term vision

Social media obviously plays an integral role in giving the masses a voice, but it also creates an environment where there are demands on politicians to meet the individual needs of every group.  This of course isn’t always feasible.  Governing is about making the majority happy, and unfortunately, not everyone can have their cake and eat it too.  It’s little wonder that nothing seems to get done, when governments are forced to consider the implications of a decision on a multitude of minority groups, and how a decision might result in a public backlash sparked by a minority group.  

I’m a social media pessimist in this respect, but I believe such a stance is warranted, particularly in light of Lessig’s (2009) discussion of the effects of transparency on politics.  Lessig argues that transparency will push politics over the cliff and I’m inclined to agree, as it’s the very cause of political stagnation, which has been exhibited here in Australia over the past few years.  But let’s face it; social media has created a complex ecology, which has completely re-invented the way we think about politics.

I wonder what will become of politics.  Whilst we could go back to a simpler time before social media, I honestly doubt that will happen.  I think that the idea of government 2.0 will be the way of the future.  I just hope society can be trusted not to screw itself over.  According to Styles (2009) the tricky part of government 2.0 is knowing all the options.  How do citizens make sense of decision making, and how do we as a nation decide what options are given to vote on a decision?

If the concept of government 2.0 did work, it would be empowering, and the possibilities are great.  The pressing question which will face us in the future is how we organise and structure such a democracy so that the important issues get addressed the right way.

    References

[online] Ellis, Bob (2010) ‘Sleepless in Canberra’ The ABC, Drum Unleashed

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35116.html

Accessed 2-5-2013

  [online] Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in

government.’

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0

Accessed 2-5-2013

  [online] Styles, Catherine (2009) “A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the

functions visible’

http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/

Accessed 3-5-2013

  [online] Wark, McKenzie (2011) 'How to Occupy an Abstraction', Verso blog,

October 3, http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/728

Accessed 3-5-2013

I miss my old blog. I liked the pressure of knowing people I know would see my work, as opposed to the faceless, arbitrary internet. And also Kyle.

I see enormous value for transparency precisely in it's power to shame and to obfuscate when I see it targeted at bodies I want to see forced to account for themselves, and in this way I am sympathetic to Brandeis. I love markets. I love choices. For these reasons, I don't love government, but I love government transparency. I love the Zuckerberg conception of privacy: that you have none when you are in public, beyond the boundaries of your body. The government is, literally, public.

If, however, I saw the same power targeted at bodies I don't think are a waste of time and money, I would find my level of sympathy dropping rather rapidly. Nonetheless, my perspective as a PR student is that you can hide only that which is in your power to hide. Anything more is a waste of effort, and the way it is presented is key to the way it is perceived. 

This is where my problem with Lessig's  (2009) apology to privacy occurs. I simply can't agree that the drive for transparency is detrimental because the public cannot decipher data accurately enough to know what it means. There are assumptions about our political culture, and this is one we can do without. The justification that people are not smart enough for x does not belong in the domain of the commentator, and moreover is no reason to obscure information.  That is reason to challenge the bodies that present information - governments, corporations, media, non profits, individuals, and whatnot - to do so accurately; to hold them to account. His rejection of the free marketplace of ideas and its method of self-correction is bizarre in the face of modern fact-checking. A rumour can still take off before the truth gets its boots on, but it won't make it half way around the world.

Accordingly, the ideas Brafman & Beckstrom (2010) traffic in sit much better with me: decentralization and open access as strength, the potential for meaningful contribution valued over the potential for misinterpretation. I suppose we're dealing with a bit of chaos theory here, but equilibrium will out. That's what it does.

So it follows, then that Style's (2009) optimism for Government 2.0 sparkles, but doesn't seem to take into account the political reality that governments do not willingly give up power, whatever potential technology can create. Her enthusiasm for open, non-hierarchical engagement with policy ill fits a policy which, as best as I can tell (this caveat is important), has done little except consolidate government power over citizen's data and funded some projects that went nowhere. However, her conception of visible government highlights the mystery that allows state inefficiency to flourish.

So, while I think a to-the-letter visualisation of what government does is off the cards, I do know what the interim step is - and it's fantastic. Welcome to http://www.texastransparency.org. It is a place of hope and wonder, of joy, of potential, of what transparency is meant to mean. It is every dollar, down to the penny, of Texas state government revenue and expenditure. It is accountability as its finest - and hopefully it is the forebear of things to come. 

References:

Lessig, Lawrence (2009) 'Against transparency: The perils of openness in government', New Republic, viewed 2/5/13 <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,2&id=vvTJ3x9U6J9EVdt4kyilqJUpPqhRlYmSwRWiWG3mYZgCPHVxDywIMV1o1U6ff9Ji>

Styles, Catherine (2009), 'A government 2.0 idea - first, make all the functions visible', Making Manifest, viewed 2/5/13 <http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/>

The Internet is an amazing place, we get the opportunity and ability to comment with people from all over the world. With the invention of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter and the invention of blog sites like Tumblr and WordPress we have created the web 2.0, a world wide online community. Most of my social networking day consists of me reading about other peoples lives and looking through their pictures, "liking" what appeals to me and commenting on posts I think are worth commenting on. But we haven't only created a web 2.0 we have now created a government 2.0. So what does that really mean?

We have been able to create an almost "open" or "transparent" government, where the public are more involved in decision making then they ever have been before. If we just back into the past even 30 years, governments were elected by the people yes, but they didn't have a hand in the decision making. If we disagreed with a decision made by the public we tried to get some people together to rally and show that we were disgruntled, but our protests weren't heard by all. Now days all we need to do is post a Facebook status, that takes 3 or 4 seconds, against a government decision and suddenly the 500 friends you have automatically see it. They might "like" it or "share" it, now that person has shared that comment with their friends, all 1000 of them. Word can spread like wild fire now, we, as an online community, can make something popular and famous, or we can make them crash and burn.

The idea of the 2.0 government is built on the idea of transparency. Its aim...to make data easily available to the public, giving them the ability to know what is going on with their government. Its the publishing of information, including government data, for anyone to see. The government is beginning to jump onto the web 2.0 bandwagon. We now have a "transparent" government. 

So how transparent is our government becoming? In 2009 the Government 2.0 Taskforce was created by the Rudd government. The Taskforce's work falls into " two streams. The first relates to increasing the openness of government through making public sector information more widely available to promote transparency, innovation and value adding to government information. The second stream is concerned with encouraging online engagement with the aim of drawing in the information, knowledge, perspectives, resources and even, where possible, the active collaboration of anyone wishing to contribute to public life" (Lindsay Tanner MP Federal Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Rudd Government. Government 2.0 taskforce website, 2009). 

So remember people - "Your global village needs YOU!!"

http://gov2.net.au/ (Image reference) 

References:

http://gov2.net.au/

http://gov2.net.au/about/

Styles, Catherine (2009) "A government 2.0 idea - first, make all the functions visible', <http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/> 

They often say that the more you know, the more it can hurt you. This idea I believe can be closely linked with the notion of transparency, which forces Governments to be open about their information, data, motives etc. While not necessarily identified as a political issue, such a concept has had a great effect on breast cancer foundations, especially since the release of the film ‘Pink Ribbon Inc.’

The 2011 Canadian documentary included personal anecdotes from breast cancer patients, raising concerns on how such a serious illness has become the centre of corporate campaigns, and ‘capitalising on hope’. Through media and technology, the documentary spread worldwide, causing a global concern on the transparency and motives of such organisations.

Styles’ (2009) idea of Government 2.0 can also be interpreted to reflect on organisations that are associated with breast cancer fundraising. Transparency will no doubt however, be restricted by certain limitations. For example, Styles’ explains that ‘The tricky part is knowing all the options – being aware of all the ways in which governments shape our environments, cultures and experiences’ (Styles, 2009). Many of these organisations are quite transparent in how much is raised yearly, the profits made from sales and where it is distributed, such as the McGrath Foundation who explain on their website how much of every dollar is used for funding and realising their goals. While it might be ideal for organisations to be transparent about every motive and every aspect of funding, issues regarding whether knowing too much can essentially be more problematic than what we already know. As Mason (2011) explains, ‘People just know more than they used to… More or less everything you need to know to make sense of the world is available as freely downloadable content on the internet.’

Social media has made information accessible to almost everyone, but just how much should we be entitled to access? Styles (2009) makes a good point in explaining that ‘transparent, collaborative decision-making is satisfying, even when you don’t get what you want’, as the advantages of transparency would lead to honesty and reliability. In regards to these organisations, since we already have some transparent information and data available to us, the question therefore is not whether it is right or wrong, but rather what society and individuals choose to do with this information in the aftermath. It hasn’t stopped individuals from donating money, so what has this information influenced? 

ps. Transversally

References

Mason, P 2011, ‘Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere’, Idle Scrawls BBC, accessed 30 April 2013, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html >

Pink Ribbons (Trailer), 2011, online video, accessed 30 April 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QPZfcYTUaA&feature=fvwrel>

During this week’s lecture we looked at the concepts of framing and transversity and their role within our lives and the media. To give a simple definition transversal is one line intersecting a number of already established lines. In the context of the media, Andrew gave an effective explanation using the music industry as an example. In the music industry there is a set system for buying and listening to music. That is the artists record their music and the record company distributes this to the individual retailers who in turn sell it to the consumer. However this system is being transversed by the emergence of new file sharing programs which operate over the internet (the biggest being the organisation “Pirate Bay), giving users the power to bypass the traditional system and download their music for free off the internet. The quote we were given in the lecture used the metaphor of a zoo; “if framing is like building a zoo than transversality is like setting the animals free”. I think this is useful if we think about the media and new technologies that are enhancing our ability communicate with one another. For example social media application Twitter has transversed countless lines and boundaries to become integral in all aspects of life from politics (a major reason for the success of the Obama elections campaigns) to science, to just simply sharing ideas among friends. When technologies transverse the established structures in place they tend to revolutionise the industry and the way it operates, often forcing the industry to evolve or perish, with the two previous companies having proven this in recent times. We now seldom see any traditional record stores still in business with music almost solely purchased online. Politicians now favor social media to launch their campaign messages and communicate with their audience, removing the middle man that was the media and ensuring that their message is framed exactly the way they want it. As we become more and more technologically dependent I think this is just the beginning as transversality continues to redefine the way we live and communicate with each other as a global community.

Wikipedia states that framing 'consists of a schema of interpretation' and that Transversal is 'a line that crosses other lines which can bring fields together in order to create something else. In a simple way of thinking, i guess it like cutting a square diagonally and creating two triangles.

I am particularly interested in applying to Journalism. You see, many think that the digital world is 'killing' journalism and that the journalism industry is in crisis. I, for one, used to agree with this until i read Angela Phillips' article, 'The Future of Journalism'. In this article, Phillips (2012) begs to differ she states that rather than the journalism industry is being endangered she believes that 'Journalism is not in crisis.  It is in many ways more exciting than it has ever been' with examples such as the fact that journalism has evolved rather than been put in a crisis as text journalism can now be teamed with video, sounds and other interactive options. She further states that the advances in technology has now provided us with devices that allows us to load and update rapidly, if not always instantly.

I have to agree with the concept that the models are evolving and not disappearing as Phillips (2012) provides a very strong argument.

So i guess rather than waiting for what's inevitable, Phillips (2012) urges journalist to take advantage of technological advances to keep journalism evolving, I for one, know that The Guardian has:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vDGrfhJH1P4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sources:

"Transversally" 

Now that is out of the way...

This week I investigated how the Internet is forcing change in certain industries. In particular music and journalism. Surprisingly these changes are very similar. Producing these mediums used to be a qualified task, now anyone with a computer can be a journalist, musician or producer. Because of these changes both the journalism and music industries have had to adapt to the challenges the Internet has thrown at them. 

The music industry is rapidly changing. This issue has been discussed throughly over the past years. Casey (2011) points out that the new music industry is already here. An industry where the musician doesn't need a recording contract, agent or even an instrument to produce recorded music. She goes onto to say there are countless new artists emerging along with countless new consumers. I have noticed in the cultures I interact in it is socially cool, even encouraged, to find "new music". This means trawling Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud etc. and once you have found this "new music" you post it on your blog, Twitter, Facebook to show your friends. This is an example of music being intergrated into social media. 

These new musicians often do not record in traditional recording studios. After engaging in this week's readings I realized how Apple has now become the recording device, the producer and the host of music. The musician can record their piece on GarageBand where they can edit and produce it. They can then send it off to the iTunes store (or Amazon) where the store will host it. Taking 30% of all profits for simply having the song on iTunes (or Amazon). There is no risk for them to host the music (Paul 2012). 

David Byrne (2007) discusses what is like to be on both the creative and the business aspects of the music industry. He voices his concern that the industry has become about selling the product (e.g. albums) instead of the concepts (i.e. music). Because of the changes to the industry recording costs have declined, manufacturing and distributing costs have declined and touring is not just for promotion (Byrne, 2007). These changes demonstrate how the music industry has altered since the rise of the rise of the Internet. 

Journalism is being challenged in similar ways. Now anyone with a smart phone, laptop, tablet or any other connection to the Internet is a journalist. Opportunities for citizen journalists keep appearing. Now the major newspapers are encouraging audience participation, debate and even to challenge the journalists and correct them according to Rusbridger (2012). I find this concept interesting. Although the media sources state they are all for citizen journalism they still control which article the audience is allowed to comment on (more on that in my research paper).

This led me to thinking about what a closed environment the Internet is. If a citizen, lets call her Jane,  contributed to an online paper or online part of a paper such as The Guardian (this is hypothetical remember), and they post on their blog, Facebook, Twitter and email all their friends about it imagine how many hits it would get. Now assume the article is well written and very interesting so each of Jane's friends shared this article. And so on and so fourth. Add a paywall into the equation, and although this would discourage some, it would also increase payments from a demographic not necessarily tapped into. I'm not entirely sure this makes sense, but it was a huge realisation moment for me.  I believe it is very well represented in the Guardian News Advertisment about the Three Little Pigs which can be seen here.

This advertisment and interacting with any online news source highlights how intergrated the multimedia platforms are. These changes show how the journalism industry has adapted the Internet. They also highlight how the industry will continue to change. A lot of media scholars believe this is the way media will be distributed in the future. Slowly fading out the traditional forms of distribution. 

I found it interesting to see how the music and journalism industries have changed to accomodate the Internet, and how they will continue to change so they are still profitable and satisfying to all audiences. 

Refrences  Byrne, D (2007), David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists--and Mega Stars [Accessed 9/4/12] http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

Paul (2012), I'm a Successful Artist. And Here's Why Things Have Never Been Worse, [Accessed 9/4/12] http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120214cracker

Casey, T. (2011), The New Music Industry Is Not Coming, [Accessed 9/4/12], http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/the-new-music-industry-is-not-coming.html

Hicks, J. (2012), The Verge Interview: David Car on Curation, Crowdsourcing and the Future of Journalism, [Accessed 11/4/12] http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/3/2912487/david-carr-interview-dnp