Post #9: "Twitter News"

In Kate Crawford's article "News To Me: Twitter and the Personal Networking of News", Crawford discusses if Twitter can be classified as an outlet for news. Does Twitter play a vital role in news ecology, or is it just used as a personal diary for millions of users?
Crawford uses an example of how a Twitter post can be considered journalism. When US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, eyewitness Janis Krums tweeted the news. Krums' tweet became the first news of the incident and put Twitter in the spotlight of citizen journalism.
Crawford brings up an interesting point: can a rapidly dispersed piece of information be considered 'journalism'? Krums himself did not intend for his post to necessarily be 'citizen journalism'. Crawford explains that it all comes down to deciding what counts as news and what does not.
The amount of people that tune into these posts can be a deciding factor in what is newsworthy. People discussing the stories can lead to the creation of other stories, and so on and so forth. She notes that Twitter shares news in an organic way: it's something that reflects communities and moves within a shared structure of emotion.
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to think of Twitter as being a valid source of news. Sure, not every user is going to be on the scene as soon as a story breaks out and not everyone will create "good" posts (i.e. lamenting how you burnt your toast probably isn't considered citizen journalism), but I have faith in Twitter. Who knows; maybe the next big global story will first be delivered to us in 140 characters.

Post #8: "Surveillance Environments"

I found the article "Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments" by Steve Mann, Jason Nolan and Barry Wellman while doing research for my final paper. In the article, they examine what kind of technology the average citizen can arm themselves with in order to conduct their own sousveillance on higher powers.
They define sousveillance as being a form of "reflectionism": procedures of using technology to mirror and confront bureaucratic organizations. Most organizations can easily keep their eyes on their employees by using cameras or monitoring what websites they visit on company computers. If employees were to arm themselves with technology to take surveillance into their own hands, this would restore the delicate balance of power.
Mann and company say that privacy is a psychological as well as a social and political requirement. Surveillance is most certainly a power struggle. If someone has access to your personal activities and can encourage you to change them, they have dominance over you.
I think it's interesting that Mann and company suggest having cell phones or cameras JUST for the sole purpose of sousveillance. I think it's safe to say that these devices were initially created for personal fun (as well as gimmick to make money I'm sure).
Now I wonder if this idea will ever become the norm. Will employees and everyday citizens chose to become part of the sousveillance culture? Will it be commonplace for employees and customers to watch and criticize higher powers? More importantly, will the power struggle ever end?
I think this sums up their article well: “You're surveilling the surveillance. And if everyone were surveilling the surveillance, the surveillance would be neutralized. It would be unnecessary.”

Post #7: "Many Faces"

In Sharon Meraz' article "The Many Faced 'You' of Social Media", Meraz looks at the democratic potential of peer-production social aggregator sites like Digg and Reddit. Through the lens of user engagement and news sources, it is said that open systems can support egalitarian democracy that is open to the contributions of the average citizens. In a nutshell, users can vote for which stories they find the most interesting, and these stories will appear on the front page for more people to see.

Meraz conducted some research and came to several conclusions. Reddit and Digg focused more on citizen media sources more than traditional media. On the other hand, Netscape and Newsvine focused more on traditional media sites. Overall, she concludes that these social media sites are attempting to re-balance the power of traditional media entities within social media environments. It's clear that these kinds of sites exist to encourage the political engagement and conversation of citizens.

Reddit's slogan at the top of the page reads: "The voice of the Internet - news before it happens". Users have the power to pick and choose what news topics they prefer and which ones they deem more important than others. This relates to what we discussed in class about customizing sites and news feeds to suit our own personal agenda. If I were interested in a particular political view, I could adjust my daily websites or index sites to cater to it.
I think that these kinds of sites offer an interesting perspective on the new movement of journalism. Along with the rise of citizen journalism, citizens now have the power to choose what stories they think are important. There are definite pros and cons for this movement, but I find myself asking this simple question: Is hand-picked news really news?

Post #6: "Participatory Panopticon"

While researching sources for my final essay, I came across Jamais Cascio's article "The Rise of the Participatory Panopticon". I found this article through Kingsley Dennis' "Keeping a Close Watch". Cascio also uses the term 'sousveillance' much like Dennis does. Cascio explains that everything we say and do will be recorded and kept on an online record that will remain intact for years and years to come. It's not the government or any other higher power that will be doing this to us though -- WE are the ones that are broadcasting personal information. We will all carry the tools that will enable our transparency, in which Cascio calls the 'Participatory Panopticon'.
Cascio says that our cell phones are the main way of transmitting our personal data, whether it's sending out pictures or status updates. Cascio talks about groups that have formulated specifically to keep their eyes on individuals, such as the United Kingdom's "Blair Witch Project" to watch Prime Minister Tony Blair as he sets out on a campaign across the country.
Cascio's article goes hand-in-hand with what we've been talking about in class in the case of panopticism and sousveillance. He talks about the social effects of watchful eyes on humankind, personal secrecy, and permanent accusations. A citizen accusing a police officer about wrongfully hitting a protester will now live forever, even if a case is not made about the issue. It's harder and harder to forget the past actions of society when everything is now easily accessible for years to come.

Post #5: "The Crisis of Journalism"

Robert McChesney begins his article "The Crisis for Journalism and the Internet" by drawing a simple conclusion: journalism is in trouble. He argues that today's journalism is corrupt, lacks investigative reporting, degenerates political reporting, and focuses too much on celebrity scandals, among other problems. McChesney assures us that these problems existed before the immersion of the Internet. In fact, the crisis began long before online journalism and blogging burst onto the scene.
Personally, I agree with much of what McChesney argues. A majority of the news I see reported on TV deals with petty issues such as how winter and cold weather is affecting Canadians. Aren't there more pressing issues at hand other than on a natural occurrence that happens every year?
The amount of power that major corporations have over journalism in general is quite disturbing. On a smaller level, I witnessed this power last year as a writer on The Sputnik. I was the one that pursued the story about the fired Don at Post House. I tried to get the university to tell me exactly what happened, but I was told to stay out of official business and that I should be ashamed of myself for pursuing such a story.
Why is it such a crime to try and let unheard voices have their say? With so-called bigwigs controlling what can and cannot be published, McChesney is right in saying that there is a crisis with journalism today. Can we really claim that journalism is democratic when we have difficulty publishing perfectly good stories?

Post #4: "Panopticism"

The thought of what 17th century towns did during a plague is a frightening one. People were prisoners in their own homes, and were punished by death if they dared to leave. Everyone was monitored and locked up in a metaphorical cage. Citizens of the town were permanently watched and controlled; guards would report to the mayor and magistrates were in charge of keeping watched over the households. Each individual was constantly examined and their every move was supervised.
Enter the Panopticon: a type of circular prison in which inmates could not tell when they were being watched by their superiors. Designed by Jeremy Bentham, the Panopticon was created to imply the presence of an invisible watcher. The idea that a person is always being watched will inevitably alter their behaviour.
The idea of the Panopticon can be related to Internet vigilantism. In the case of "dog-shit girl" as we see in Kingsley Dennis' article about online surveillance, the general public has a large amount of power. In South Korea, a young woman refused to clean up her dog's defecation on the subway even though fellow passengers urged her to do so and offered her tissues. Passengers snapped pictures of the girl, her dog, and the mess that she made on the subway and posted the pictures on a popular Korean website. In a short amount of time, the girl was identified and began to receive negative media attention.
This kind of "web vigilantism" is prominent on an imageboard website called 4chan. The site is split into many different categories, such as Cartoons and Comics, Video Games, Cooking, and Sports where users can anonymously post content. The most notorious board on 4chan is /b/, in which there are no rules as to what users can post. Users on /b/ are infamous for tracking down individuals based on pictures or information that they post. In February 2009, a boy posted a video of himself abusing a cat on YouTube. Users on /b/ were able to find out the boy's identity and alert the authorities. Along with tracking down people who have made bomb threats, /b/ revolutionized the notion of Internet Vigilantism.
I find Internet Vigilantism fascinating. Rarely are users ever credited with bringing others to justice. This is the true spirit of vigilantism: focusing on justice rather than glory.

Post #3: "A New Communications Commons"

In Dorothy Kidd's article "Indymedia.org: A New Communications Commons", Kidd discusses how the way media is distributed and read by the masses has changed. Indymedia.org is a network of 60 autonomously operated websites involving independent media producers. This new social movement brings together all kinds of different viewpoints to create a bigger picture. Acting as a watchdog for the mainstream media, Indymedia.org represents a new generation of social movements.
A social movement is comprised of local housing and media activists, journalists, and independent media producers. The public has been in a struggle to take back the media from private control. The new commons of media is an open system of and by the people, or as a closed system controlled by private owners.
The birth of the Internet has created a new commons. During the 1990's, many people demanded that information be free and that media should not be siphoned solely through mainstream media. Nowadays, wireless technologies such as laptops and phones have enabled citizens to connect to each other through networks, creating "smart mobs".
The Internet truly has become an active way of challenging the norms of media. Indymedia.org is just an example of a social media site that keeps an eye on mainstream news media. An alternative news media sites called Democracy Now! offers stories on global war and peace issues without the constraints of mainstream new media. Smart-mobs are now capable of challenging and changing social norms by providing bottom-up global surveillance of both the government and the mainstream news media.
Personally, I think that the new communication commons is a beautiful thing. I can now communicate with someone halfway around the world about issues that we both feel passionate about. We would also be able to discuss how we could go about solving these issues without actually meeting face-to-face. I'm positive that communications commons will continue to evolve and challenge social norms as we know them.