exemplars

http://www.jcgmedia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=97

To what extent is the revolutionary aspect of the internet exaggerated?

Questions about Twitter

1.   Which of the positive points he made reflect what Michael Wesch has said about YouTube?

 He says that it is an incredible vice for information, rivaling Google, people can distribute information at the click of a button and it is then accessible to an infinite audience. Also because it is user generated there is more variation. Wesch and Rusbridger both indulge in the ideology that the sites are revolutionary in the sense that it is where things happen first, news is broke on twitter e.g. Superinjuctions, and new  trends begin on youtube, e.g. Numa Numa guy. Rusbridger states that Twitter is a 'formidable aggregation tool' that cannot be challenged by 'old media' , it would be impossible for even a team of journalists to report the same quantity and quality of information that is distributed by the masses via tweets. Marketing - you have an audience with an expressed interest in your area of work which makes marketing easy. Feedback instantaneously.

2.    What were the negative aspects of Twitter identified by Rusbridger?

Inane conversations, negative stereotypes reinforced by the garbage talk that occurs on both sites. It is reductive, taking depth, meaning and power away from a topic. It doesn't self verify, empty facts can be globally distributed without foundations of truth:"The downside of Twitter also means that the full weight of the world's attention can fall on a single unstable piece of information." It can be distracting, indiscriminate and overwhelming.

3.   Henry Jenkins in convergence Culture talks about the coexistence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ media. Why is this significant when considering the impact of Twitter?

Old media can exploit twitter, using tweets in magazine, stories based solely upon twitter which can be new every hour/day/week as the site is continuously changing. An example of Twitter becoming globally newsworthy is the exposing of Superinjuction celebrities, whereby the information about the story is not able to be distributed by any media associations because of the nature of the case, but they are able to report that the information has been....

Max Mosley case - Newspaper bosses say imposing "pre-publication notification" to toughen the "right to private life" would have breached the "right to freedom of expression".

Alan Rusbridger - Twitter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/19/alan-rusbridger-twitter

1) It's an amazing form of distribution

It's a highly effective way of spreading ideas, information and content. Don't be distracted by the 140-character limit. A lot of the best tweets are links. It's instantaneous. Its reach can be immensely far and wide.
Why does this matter? Because we do distribution too. We're now competing with a medium that can do many things incomparably faster than we can. It's back to the battle between scribes and movable type. That matters in journalistic terms. And, if you're trying to charge for content, it matters in business terms. The life expectancy of much exclusive information can now be measured in minutes, if not in seconds. That has profound implications for our economic model, never mind the journalism.

2) It's where things happen first

Not all things. News organisations still break lots of news. But, increasingly, news happens first on Twitter. If you're a regular Twitter user, even if you're in the news business and have access to wires, the chances are that you'll check out many rumours of breaking news on Twitter first. There are millions of human monitors out there who will pick up on the smallest things and who have the same instincts as the agencies — to be the first with the news. As more people join, the better it will get.

3) As a search engine, it rivals Google

Many people still don't quite understand that Twitter is, in some respects, better than Google in finding stuff out. Google is limited to using algorithms to ferret out information in the unlikeliest hidden corners of the web. Twitter goes one stage further – harnessing the mass capabilities of human intelligence to the power of millions in order to find information that is new, valuable, relevant or entertaining.

4) It's a formidable aggregation tool

You set Twitter to search out information on any subject you want and it will often bring you the best information there is. It becomes your personalised news feed. If you are following the most interesting people they will in all likelihood bring you the most interesting information. In other words, it's not simply you searching. You can sit back and let other people you admire or respect go out searching and gathering for you. Again, no news organisation could possibly aim to match, or beat, the combined power of all those worker bees collecting information and disseminating it.

5) It's a great reporting tool

Many of the best reporters are now habitually using Twitter as an aid to find information. This can be simple requests for knowledge which other people already know, have to hand, or can easily find. The so-called wisdom of crowds comes into play: the 'they know more than we do' theory. Or you're simply in a hurry and know that someone out there will know the answer quickly. Or it can be reporters using Twitter to find witnesses to specific events – people who were in the right place at the right time, but would otherwise be hard to find.

6) It's a fantastic form of marketing

You've written your piece or blog. You may well have involved others in the researching of it. Now you can let them all know it's there, so that they come to your site. You alert your community of followers. In marketing speak, it drives traffic and it drives engagement. If they like what they read they'll tell others about it. If they really like it, it will, as they say, 'go viral'. I only have 18,500 followers. But if I get re-tweeted by one of our columnists, Charlie Brooker, I instantly reach a further 200,000. If Guardian Technology pick it up it goes to an audience of 1.6m. If Stephen Fry notices it, it's global.

7) It's a series of common conversations. Or it can be

As well as reading what you've written and spreading the word, people can respond. They can agree or disagree or denounce it. They can blog elsewhere and link to it. There's nothing worse than writing or broadcasting something to no reaction at all. With Twitter you get an instant reaction. It's not transmission, it's communication. It's the ability to share and discuss with scores, or hundreds, or thousands of people in real time. Twitter can be fragmented. It can be the opposite of fragmentation. It's a parallel universe of common conversations.

8) It's more diverse

Traditional media allowed a few voices in. Twitter allows anyone.

9) It changes the tone of writing

A good conversation involves listening as well as talking. You will want to listen as well as talk. You will want to engage and be entertaining. There is, obviously, more brevity on Twitter. There's more humour. More mixing of comment with fact. It's more personal. The elevated platform on which journalists sometimes liked to think they were sitting is kicked away on Twitter. Journalists are fast learners. They start writing differently.
Talking of which…

10) It's a level playing field

A recognised "name" may initially attract followers in reasonable numbers. But if they have nothing interesting to say they will talk into an empty room. The energy in Twitter gathers around people who can say things crisply and entertainingly, even though they may be "unknown." They may speak to a small audience, but if they say interesting things they may well be republished numerous times and the exponential pace of those re-transmissions can, in time, dwarf the audience of the so-called big names. Shock news: sometimes the people formerly known as readers can write snappier headlines and copy than we can.

11) It has different news values

People on Twitter quite often have an entirely different sense of what is and what isn't news. What seems obvious to journalists in terms of the choices we make is quite often markedly different from how others see it – both in terms of the things we choose to cover and the things we ignore. The power of tens of thousands of people articulating those different choices can wash back into newsrooms and affect what editors choose to cover. We can ignore that, of course. But should we?

12) It has a long attention span

The opposite is usually argued – that Twitter is simply a, instant, highly condensed stream of consciousness. The perfect medium for goldfish. But set your Tweetdeck to follow a particular keyword or issue or subject and you may well find that the attention span of Twitterers puts newspapers to shame. They will be ferreting out and aggregating information on the issues that concern them long after the caravan of professional journalists has moved on.

13) It creates communities

Or, rather communities form themselves around particular issues, people, events, artifacts, cultures, ideas, subjects or geographies. They may be temporary communities, or long-terms ones, strong ones or weak ones. But I think they are recognisably communities.

14) It changes notions of authority

Instead of waiting to receive the 'expert' opinions of others – mostly us, journalists — Twitter shifts the balance to so-called 'peer to peer' authority. It's not that Twitterers ignore what we say – on the contrary (see distribution and marketing, above) they are becoming our most effective transmitters and responders. But, equally, we kid ourselves if we think there isn't another force in play here – that a 21-year-old student is quite likely to be more drawn to the opinions and preferences of people who look and talk like her. Or a 31-year-old mother of young toddlers. Or a 41-year-old bloke passionate about politics and the rock music of his youth.

15) It is an agent of change

As this ability of people to combine around issues and to articulate them grows, so it will have increasing effect on people in authority. Companies are already learning to respect, even fear, the power of collaborative media. Increasingly, social media will challenge conventional politics and, for instance, the laws relating to expression and speech.
Now you could write a further list of things that are irritating about the way people use Twitter. It's not good at complexity – though it can link to complexity. It can be frustratingly reductive. It doesn't do what investigative reporters or war correspondents do. It doesn't, of itself, verify facts. It can be distracting, indiscriminate and overwhelming.
Moreover, I'm simply using Twitter as one example of the power of open, or social media. Twitter may go the way of other, now forgotten, flashes in the digital pan. The downside of Twitter also means that the full weight of the world's attention can fall on a single unstable piece of information. But we can be sure that the motivating idea behind these forms of open media isn't going away and that, if we are blind to their capabilities, we will be making a very serious mistake, both in terms of our journalism and the economics of our business.

Revision stuff

Points to be made for questions below...

PRODUCTION who makes the media texts?

traditional film studios vs new studios

it hasn't changed very much BECAUSE old media still dominates globally

processes of production have been cut out due to digital technology - changed to digital from physical film (cutting vs digital editing)

fewer movies are being made but the ones that are made are big blockbuster films e.g. Captain America- more formulaic

the films are spectacles, they have invested a lot into 3D films, as they bring people back to the cinema, less chance of piracy as well

higher production costs which keep other companies out of competition

DISTRIBUTION how does it reach the audience?

online promotions/ virals

new media producers - cuts costs, enables global plant floor, collaboration Wikinomics - Tapscott and Williams

CONSUMPTION who is the audience? how do they consume media?

streaming, pirate bay, downloads, Piracy - threat

youtube, Michael Wesch Collapse of Context, Cultural Inversion, Participation Culture.

MEDIA IMPERIALISM - a theory based upon an over-concentration of mass media from larger nations as a significant variable in negatively affecting smaller nations, in which the national identity of smaller nations is lessened or lost due to media homogeneity inherent in mass media from the larger countries.

see http://neohumanism.org/m/me/media_imperialism.html 

HEGEMONY -

see Antonio Gramsci - Cultural Hegemony : Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological concept, originated by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, that a culturally-diverse society can be ruled or dominated by one of its social classes. It is the dominance of one social group over another, e.g. the ruling class over all other classes. The theory claims that the ideas of the ruling class come to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst really benefiting only the ruling class.

MARXISM - 

http://vernonsullivan.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/the-dilemma-of-authenticity/

 

Media in the online age - example questions - film

1) "The impact of the internet on the media is revolutionary" Discuss


2) Discuss the extent to which distribution of media have been transformed by the internet


3) What difference has the internet made to media consumption and production?


4) How important to change in the media is the idea of convergence?

5) To what extent is the revolutionary aspect of the internet exaggerated?


http://www.aqa.org.uk/qualifications/a-level/english-and-media/media-studies.php