Too Many Cooks? How do we moderate this Kitchen?

How many voices can really be heard when everyone is screaming? To be metaphoric: If so many people are looking to throw into the mix, their own ingredients, surely the concoction will become a monumental mess!

This is just one of the problems we are facing with the development and increasing expansion of the internet. The possibilities for conversations, interactions and feedback are growing with the Public Sphere now being located online; a world that cannot be controlled by what is ‘socially acceptable’.

I witnessed online, the abuse of a mother who had lost her son. His picture was displayed in the missing persons social network archive. While she grieved, there were those who chose to comment in ways that were not necessary, considering the seriousness of the situation.

This is happening more and more as we become ‘pro’sumers, believing our content to be valid, authentic and worthy of publicity (Martin 2012). We give feedback on national matters and publicly debate social issues. How much of such debates can be heard with so many voices and no regulation?

Other issues we are facing include trolling, spamming, invasions of privacy, security and bullying, to name a few. These issues must be addressed so as to prevent an anarchical and unleashed public sphere.

And yet, “The fight for control of the borderless expanse of cyberspace has been compared by some to the historic dispute over the rule of the ocean (Halliday 2012).”

I guess we need to learn to regulate ourselves so that what we create online is at the very least, civilised. Increased education for youth may also provide a means by which the madness of the crowds’ may be diluted (Martin 2012). Finally, there is a certain amount of control that owners of social media sites may execute, should the need arise. For example, if a feedback forum for an article is becoming too disorderly, owners of the site should possess the right remove comments that are threatening to the integrity of the organisation.

References

Martin, F 2012, ‘Vox Populi, Vox Dei: ABC Online and the risks of dialogic interaction’ in Histories of Public Service Broadcasters on the Web, editors N, Brugger and M., Burns. New York: Peter Lang

Halliday, J 2012, ‘Free speech haven or lawless cesspool – can the internet be civilised?’, The Guardian, 19 April

One Size Cannot Fit All

‘All Australians have the right to access all forms of media and information, through technology, so they can participate fully in society’ (Media Access Australia 2011).

I was on the train, not long ago and there was a woman, in the next cart that had fallen down. She was panic stricken and explaining that she had heart problems to the train’s first officer. We stopped at the nearest station and waited for the ambulance. Beside me, an elderly couple sat, confused, looking at their watches anxiously and trying to work out what was going on. I realised they were both deaf. Having learned the basics of sign previously, I was able to illustrate what had happened and the expected wait time. If that weren’t enough, the delay had meant that one of the stops was being re-routed and those getting off would have to catch a bus. I passed this on also, to their thanks. They were intending to get off there and would have been oblivious to the change.

People with disabilities are again, and again being overlooked with the development of new technologies (Goggin 2007). These technologies are supposed to be making life easier, for all. Instead we are creating an even larger barrier between those with impairments and ourselves. Trains, a basic mode of transport, don’t even have a means through which they can communicate with the deaf. IPhones originally had no voice activated commands and social media sites and platforms have many issues with accessibility (Media Access Australia 2011).

So why is accessible and inclusive technology so difficult to bring about?

Are our relative actors so Darwinian as to support those without disability, appealing only to the masses, or are commercial gains simply more important than the costs of increasing accessibility. Either way, these actors (political, commercial, international) should be focusing more on creativity and innovation; making technologies and social media more accessible to those with motor, intellectual and physical impairments.

One size cannot fit all.

Goggin, G & Newell, C 2007, ‘The Business of Digital Disability’ The Information Society: An International Journal, 23 (3)

Media Access Australia, 2011, sociability: Social Media for people with a disability, accessed 16/05/2013, available: http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/sites/default/files/files/MAA2657-%20Report-OnlineVersion.pdf

What the Public Wants, the Public Gets

Since WWII there have been over 7 million migrants that have settled in Australia. The large mass of land is often considered to be the most culturally diverse in the world. We are an example of a globalized world, speaking over 260 languages (Australian Government 2013).

Yet, for the most part, the media does not reflect this. Entertainment media such as Neighbours and Home and Away have rarely depicted Australia as multi-cultural and when we do see alternate and ethnic cultures being broadcasted they are often portrayed in a stereotypical light (Kalina 2012).

For a long time before and after the cold war, Russians were made to be villains of most crime, espionage media and now, after September 11, middle-easterners have taken the image of terrorists, also, those of an ethnic background are often portrayed as crooks and homosexual men are stereotyped with feminine attributes while women are so with masculinity.

The media will produce what it knows will sell. If it has been found, through ratings, that a homosexual couple are not as relate-able or esteemed as a heterosexual couple, they will not air the latter. But what does that say of our culture, of who we are as Australians? Even with this ever expanding, globalising world, are we still viewing ‘white’ as dominant?

I guess the really frustrating thing is that it’s now difficult to cast alternate cultures without appearing to tokenise them. Making those cultures seem as though they were only cast so as to maintain the peace.

While media is supposed to represent the culture to which it belongs, it also plays a part in shaping our understanding and ideological assumptions. The media has a responsibility to correctly portray the culture of the modern and globalising world. The consumption of only ‘white bread’ is not healthy and as such it should be a priority that those responsible for the production of entertainment media, seek to adjust the norm, creating a new demand.

Make what the public ‘wants’ to be a fair and diversified media.

Australian Government 2013, A Multicultural Australia, Accessed 09.05.13, available: http://www.amc.gov.au/multicultural-policy.htm

Dreher, T 2014, ‘White Bread Media’, in The Media and Communications in Australia eds. Cunningham, S and Turnbull, S, Allen and Unwin

Kalina, P 2012, ‘Diversity in the Media’, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 March, accessed 09.05.13, available: http://www.smh.com.au/action/printArticle?id=3081292

Restricting the Internet: Restricting Freedom? (Calm Down)

Over two decades ago, the ability to connect to a network was beyond imagining. The mere notion that ‘what I write here can be seen there instantly’ was a dream. Now, globalisation is ever increasing and as a result, the internet is paramount to our lives with endless opportunities for creation, innovation and customisation. We now have devices that multi-task and platforms that enable instantaneous sharing and interaction.

This freedom, like all freedoms however, comes with a price. It comes with constraints and rules – Walls – if you like. These hypothetical walls can be found on media platforms as they keep records of all data and demand that individuals ‘join’, create a password and give explanations for leaving. Even devices now are unable to be let’s say ‘fiddled with’. Examples such as APPLE and AMAZON create coded products that cannot be used in conjunction with other devices. IPads, IPods, E-Readers are all updated and come with terms of use and policies that one must agree to before use. This virtual leash placed on devices is referred to as ‘tethering’.

According to Zittrain (2008), this is bad. This is so bad in fact that he believes we are being turned back into an audience again. A passive entity restricted to the absorption of and reaction to media information.

But you see, I remember a time when I would use a search engine to look up ‘Frogs’ and I would be bombarded with (rather odd) porn and other such material I had no use for. I also remember having to type an HTML directly into the browser before search engines were able to sift through databases based on a word search.

Corporations are placing fences around the internet as a means of centralising information (and gaining further profits). While they are essentially limiting freedom, they are also making information easier to access. Kind of like a feudal society where there is a lord of the manor and all peasants are under his protection in return for their loyalty (and money).

Look at it this way: Without any sort of restriction aren’t we just drifting through an endless sea of potential rubbish without a boat to carry us? Couldn’t this freedom we so crave also lean towards an uncontrollable anarchy? Couldn’t that freedom be devastating?

Even if these corporations are seeking to further their profits, isn’t it better the devil you know…?

 

Zittrain, J. 2008, ‘Tethered Appliances, Software as Service, and Perfect Enforcement’, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp.101-126.

Open Access: Wake Up Dorothy

 

There is a vision that Universities in the digital age will encourage the sharing, rather than purchasing of resources such as journal articles. This vision was shared by Aaron Swartz who took his own life in January 2013 so as to avoid a clearly unjust ruling. As a moral imperative, Swartz felt that information should not be made digital and locked away from the world, especially information that was tax-payer funded. He had been found to have downloaded millions of journal articles, redistributing them to a wider audience, free of charge (Smith 2013).

It was said that Aaron Swartz should be made an example of for his ‘malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale’ (Emptywheel 2013). This is a gross exaggeration to say the least, when an individual is attempting to free information (taxpayer funded) for the betterment of the people.

In a world where communication systems are developing and becoming global, it is increasingly problematic that information is still restricted, to be accessed by those who either pay, or are being paid.  ‘Only by openly sharing can our intellect and education really grow’ (Arvanitakis 2009).

So just briefly, since the Aaron Swartz tragedy, a U.S Policy has decreed that Tax-Payer funded research will be freely available for one year post-publication (Smith 2013). Let us all drop the pretense and call their bluff! While it would be nice to see Universities and publishers allowing free access to information for students, it is a dream as likely to come as a girl flying over a rainbow and landing in OZ. Publishers have very few incentives to make access to their journals free.

One must ask: With Universities digitalising and the availability of education rapidly growing, why is information still largely inaccessible?

References

Arvanitakis, J 2009, ‘The autonomous university and the production of the commons’, toward a global autonomous university, (eds) The EduFactory collective, Autonomedia, New York

Emptywheel 2013, ‘DOJ Used Open Access Guerilla Manifesto to Justify Search of Aaron Swartz’ Crooks and Liars, 21 February, available: http://crooksandliars.com/emptywheel/doj-used-open-access-guerilla-manifesto

Smith, G 2013, ‘White House Grants Aaron Swartz’s Wish: Taxpayer-Funded Research Will Be Free’, The Huffington Post, 25 February, available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/aaron-swartz-white-house-taxpayer-funded-wish_n_2758744.html

Swartz’ Crooks and Liars, 21 February, available: http://crooksandliars.com/emptywheel/doj-used-open-access-guerilla-manifesto

The Enlightened Economist 2013, ‘The economics of open access publishing’ accessed 17/04/2013, available: http://www.enlightenmenteconomics.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/the-economics-of-open-access-publishing/

Free Speech or Treason

Change is inevitable and changes to journalism are current and imminent. One particular change is that of user generated content and its rise due to the availability of technology within a globalising world. As a result, long standing traditions and rules are breaking down and by extension, are threatening national security (Quandt 2011).

You see, everyone wants to be the hero; the one to crack the code and free an enslaved, ignorant nation by feeding them the ‘truth’ about the respective Governments. They believe that the duty of the free press is to ‘prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people’, following the words of Justice Black at a 1971 United States Constitutional appeal (Black 1997). An example of such is WikiLeaks.

But where can we draw a line? When does the interest of the people and what they want to know, come above the safety those living in that country or those fighting for that country? A report referenced in a 2010 article by the Telegraph in New York, strongly feared that the information could be used against the country by aiding ‘foreign intelligence’ and thereby threatening the United States (Leonard, 2010). Such aid could easily be considered treasonous and result in severe consequences for the ‘journalist’.

Traditional press are governed by policies and law which may impede free speech and public access while others, are generating content outside of media gatekeepers which may lead to a breach in the security of a nation. The discoveries and uncovering of secrets, while intended to inform the public, may be risking much through the divulging of critical and secret information.

So where do we draw the line? How far will we go to support traitors for the ‘right to know’.

References

Black, J 1971, ‘Concurring Opinion: Supreme Court of the United States’, United States Court of Appeals, Available: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC.html

Leonard, T 2010, ‘Pentagon deems WikiLeaks a national security threat’ The Telegraph, 18March, Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7475050/Pentagon-deems-Wikileaks-a-national-security-threat.html

Quandt, T 2011, ‘Understanding a new phenomenon: The significance of participatory journalism’, in Hermida et al Participatory Journalism, Wiley Blackwell

Diversity and Democracy… Don’t be Daft

“An independent inquiry has found that the way media is regulated in Australia is not rigorous enough to ensure accountability and transparency.” (Healey 2013)

Do we have a real understanding of what is going on in the world? In Australia? Did we ever have an opinion that was not clouded by bias, swing or half-truths told by the media? I watch reports on criminal trials and wonder whether the reason I believe the prosecuted to be guilty is because the position of the camera, the background music or the voice, telling me that the accused had the same cruel eyes as Ivan Millat. Is the reason that I believe feminism to be hysterical and over emotional because the media is telling me there is no need for it anymore?

Media ownership has almost killed the ability to compare and contrast opinions. With Fairfax owning over 90% of Australia’s daily newspapers how can I know that my opinion, is my own?

According to the Finkelstein Inquiry (Carson 2012), the number of independent voices, particularly in country towns, is limited. As such, the inquiry proposed that an independent body be formed ‘taxpayer funded’ as a ‘super regulator’. Large media proprietors would no longer have the ability to withdraw their participation.

With further discussion, myself and a group agreed that something must be done about media ownership and the lack of alternate voices. We agreed that there should be consequences for when codes of ethics are breached. And with media growing at such an exponential rate, crossing borders and seas, large businesses need to be accountable and transparent, just as parliament is to the judiciary. Without accountability, the owners of the media have free reign and are ironically, controlling our notions of equality and diversity, shaping our views and philosophies, fueling our passions and fears.

Carson, A 2012, Finkelstein Inquiry report case for ‘cautious optimism’, University of Melbourne

Healey, J 2013, Media, Ethics and Regulation, Issues in Society, Spinney Press, Thirroul