Diary of a Physician Assistant Wannabe: Will PAs be working at Walmart?: See the internal medicine aisle at Walmart? It seems that Walmart is casting its net farther into the medical field now as reported toda...
I'm back!
After a bit of a delay (wow, last update was Oct. 2008), I'm back to updating my blog. I make no promises this time about constant writing and updates, as I'm a little older and a bit wiser and know the time it takes to write useful and thoughtful posts. I hope to use this space to muse on my role as an Assistant Professor of Multimedia Journalism and adviser of the student run campus television station, CCTV, at Canisius College, Buffalo, NY. Return soon.
You can also follow me on Twitter, and LinkedIn.
You can also follow me on Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Campaign Journal Three
Chris Carney v. Chris Hackett (Pennsylvania 10th Congressional District)
The Lebanon Daily News stated, “On paper, freshman Rep. Chris Carney should be relatively easy pickings for the Republican Party and its nominee, Chris Hackett. After all, Republican voters outnumber Democrats in Carney's rural district in northeastern Pennsylvania by more than 30,000, and Carney owed his 2006 election largely to a sex scandal that engulfed the GOP incumbent, Don Sherwood.” And the DCCC has the race listed a “targeted race.” However, as of a September 21-25 poll, Carney has a solid 10-point lead over Hackett.
A review of the respective web sites and internet news about the campaigns show a picture of politics as usual. The first thing one notices on the official sites are the attack messages. Both sites prominently feature “fact check” sections that attack the opponent’s record, messages and actions. The different comes from Carney’s use of video, possibly accounted for by deeper pockets. Beyond the fact check section, the sites are primarily a repository for press releases, in the media stories, and candidate bios.
A review of the few blogs and media outlets reporting on this race, shows a lopsided coverage of the race. Carney seems to be playing well with the district’s republican base. As a conservative Blue Dog democrat, he has successfully portrayed himself as a candidate with Pennsylvania values, first, and a democrat, second. The local media has fixed on the story of “Republicans turn out for Carney” and “Republicans for Carney” (a group formed by the Carney campaign). The coverage of Hackett follows the line that republicans are supporting the man (Carney) and not the letter after the candidate’s name (Hackett – R). Most of the blog comments followed a Democrat line calling on democrats to rally behind all democrat candidates. Though, one blog comment call Carney “a Repub in Dem clothing” and calls on democrats to unseat him as a warning to other Blue Dog democrats.
Carney, as the incumbent seems to follow the Margolis and Resnick model, politics as usual. He favors offline events such as a “Republicans for Carney” rally, or a press confernce at a local hunting and skeet club to promote his pro-gun stance. Events designed to get local media coverage and to reinforce his identity as a moderate, even conservative, among democrats. A theme that is re-played often in the press and one that has been hard for Hackett to counter.
As for Hackett, he should be taking his cues from Benkler and Howard, and using his new media campaign to be agile, innovative and responsive. He should be using it to target potential voters with a direct email campaign, recruit and mobilize volunteer to canvas the district, and provide campaign materials for download and email re-direct. Nevertheless, a visit to his site shows a politics as usual approach and highlights a possible lack of funding by a lack of visual design and appeal. Instead of using his online presence to mobilize and motivate his followers, he uses it a tradition brochure-like way to criticize his opponent in a manner that lacks the impact to attract media attention.
So considering that this campaign is in a district that is narrow geographically and demographically homogeneous, is an aggressive and innovative new media strategy important? Is a web site or even the use of outside new media options, such as YouTube and Facebook (Carney has 367 supporters and Hackett has 127 supporters out of a possible electorate of around 484,000), going to have a significant impact over the local press coverage and the campaign’s publicity events to change an election?
The Lebanon Daily News stated, “On paper, freshman Rep. Chris Carney should be relatively easy pickings for the Republican Party and its nominee, Chris Hackett. After all, Republican voters outnumber Democrats in Carney's rural district in northeastern Pennsylvania by more than 30,000, and Carney owed his 2006 election largely to a sex scandal that engulfed the GOP incumbent, Don Sherwood.” And the DCCC has the race listed a “targeted race.” However, as of a September 21-25 poll, Carney has a solid 10-point lead over Hackett.
A review of the respective web sites and internet news about the campaigns show a picture of politics as usual. The first thing one notices on the official sites are the attack messages. Both sites prominently feature “fact check” sections that attack the opponent’s record, messages and actions. The different comes from Carney’s use of video, possibly accounted for by deeper pockets. Beyond the fact check section, the sites are primarily a repository for press releases, in the media stories, and candidate bios.
A review of the few blogs and media outlets reporting on this race, shows a lopsided coverage of the race. Carney seems to be playing well with the district’s republican base. As a conservative Blue Dog democrat, he has successfully portrayed himself as a candidate with Pennsylvania values, first, and a democrat, second. The local media has fixed on the story of “Republicans turn out for Carney” and “Republicans for Carney” (a group formed by the Carney campaign). The coverage of Hackett follows the line that republicans are supporting the man (Carney) and not the letter after the candidate’s name (Hackett – R). Most of the blog comments followed a Democrat line calling on democrats to rally behind all democrat candidates. Though, one blog comment call Carney “a Repub in Dem clothing” and calls on democrats to unseat him as a warning to other Blue Dog democrats.
Carney, as the incumbent seems to follow the Margolis and Resnick model, politics as usual. He favors offline events such as a “Republicans for Carney” rally, or a press confernce at a local hunting and skeet club to promote his pro-gun stance. Events designed to get local media coverage and to reinforce his identity as a moderate, even conservative, among democrats. A theme that is re-played often in the press and one that has been hard for Hackett to counter.
As for Hackett, he should be taking his cues from Benkler and Howard, and using his new media campaign to be agile, innovative and responsive. He should be using it to target potential voters with a direct email campaign, recruit and mobilize volunteer to canvas the district, and provide campaign materials for download and email re-direct. Nevertheless, a visit to his site shows a politics as usual approach and highlights a possible lack of funding by a lack of visual design and appeal. Instead of using his online presence to mobilize and motivate his followers, he uses it a tradition brochure-like way to criticize his opponent in a manner that lacks the impact to attract media attention.
So considering that this campaign is in a district that is narrow geographically and demographically homogeneous, is an aggressive and innovative new media strategy important? Is a web site or even the use of outside new media options, such as YouTube and Facebook (Carney has 367 supporters and Hackett has 127 supporters out of a possible electorate of around 484,000), going to have a significant impact over the local press coverage and the campaign’s publicity events to change an election?
Campaign Journal Two
For the second installment of the Campaign Journal, I will look at the Delaware gubernatorial race. Though not a particularly competitive race, it is the only one of the four races I am following that had in addition to the major-party candidates had two independent or third-party candidates. This race also lets us look at the through the lens of Michael Margolis and David Resnick authors of Politics as Usual.
Margolis and Resnick propose that though there is potential for the internet to create a forum in which all candidates and party can have equal access to voters and can provide the content needed for informed voters, the realities of money, campaign strategies, voter behavior and political self-interest will trump the altruistic potentials of the web. The Delaware gubernatorial race will allow for an examination of the campaign web site presentations of the candidates and their issues. In this race, there is no incumbent (current governor is term-limited)—though the Democrat’s (party of the out-going governor) nominee could be viewed as such since Delaware has had a Democrat in the governor’s office for the past 16 years—and there are two third-party (Independent Party of Delaware (IPOD) and the Blue Enigma Party) candidates.
One characteristic of the Margolis and Resnick model is that campaign web sites will become more standardized or “normalized,” this is evident on the campaign sites of the two major-party candidates—Jack Markell (D) and Bill Lee (R). Both sites use a patriotic red, white and blue color pallet, with a banner art containing the Delaware state flag. Both sites have prominent buttons for “about,” “issues,” “news,” “contact,” “supporter sign up,” “events” and “donate,” and both sites utilize multimedia in the form of video on the home page. Though Margolis and Resnick also state, the inequality of financial resources will limit the ability of third-party candidates to produce highly designed and technologically sophisticated web sites. The web site for the Blue Enigma Party illustrates this prediction, as the standardization of the content is not evident. In the case of the Blue Enigma Party, the web site is a true “brochure” site. The web site provides very basic information about the party, its platform of issues, a short uninformative biography of their candidate for governor (Jeff Brown), a generic link to email the party, and an external link to declareyourself.com, a voter registration site.
Further, the web sites of the major-party candidates illustrate Margolis and Resnick prediction that standard offline campaign practices will dictate online content and practices. On of these practices is in the branding of the candidates. On Markell’s site, his logo labels him as the “DEMOCRAT FOR GOVERNOR,” as the Democrats have held the office for 16 years it make political sense to identify ones self with the incumbent party; Bill Lee, as the Republican, makes no partisan claim. Secondly, the Markell has not been diligent in updating the information on his site, the last update was September 10 announcing that he had won the Democratic primary and he has not listed any upcoming event. Bill Lee’s site has been updated with news since September 10, but he is updating his event calendar. This would suggest the challenger, Bill Lee, is trying to create interest in the race, where as the de facto incumbent, Jack Markell, is keeping race interest low to take advantage of the fact that low voter interest and election day turn out favors the incumbent. These two strategies—party ID and controlling information flow—are clearly from the traditional offline campaign playbook; the goal of campaigning is to win the election, it is not to enlighten voters or promote better democracy.
Margolis and Resnick propose that though there is potential for the internet to create a forum in which all candidates and party can have equal access to voters and can provide the content needed for informed voters, the realities of money, campaign strategies, voter behavior and political self-interest will trump the altruistic potentials of the web. The Delaware gubernatorial race will allow for an examination of the campaign web site presentations of the candidates and their issues. In this race, there is no incumbent (current governor is term-limited)—though the Democrat’s (party of the out-going governor) nominee could be viewed as such since Delaware has had a Democrat in the governor’s office for the past 16 years—and there are two third-party (Independent Party of Delaware (IPOD) and the Blue Enigma Party) candidates.
One characteristic of the Margolis and Resnick model is that campaign web sites will become more standardized or “normalized,” this is evident on the campaign sites of the two major-party candidates—Jack Markell (D) and Bill Lee (R). Both sites use a patriotic red, white and blue color pallet, with a banner art containing the Delaware state flag. Both sites have prominent buttons for “about,” “issues,” “news,” “contact,” “supporter sign up,” “events” and “donate,” and both sites utilize multimedia in the form of video on the home page. Though Margolis and Resnick also state, the inequality of financial resources will limit the ability of third-party candidates to produce highly designed and technologically sophisticated web sites. The web site for the Blue Enigma Party illustrates this prediction, as the standardization of the content is not evident. In the case of the Blue Enigma Party, the web site is a true “brochure” site. The web site provides very basic information about the party, its platform of issues, a short uninformative biography of their candidate for governor (Jeff Brown), a generic link to email the party, and an external link to declareyourself.com, a voter registration site.
Further, the web sites of the major-party candidates illustrate Margolis and Resnick prediction that standard offline campaign practices will dictate online content and practices. On of these practices is in the branding of the candidates. On Markell’s site, his logo labels him as the “DEMOCRAT FOR GOVERNOR,” as the Democrats have held the office for 16 years it make political sense to identify ones self with the incumbent party; Bill Lee, as the Republican, makes no partisan claim. Secondly, the Markell has not been diligent in updating the information on his site, the last update was September 10 announcing that he had won the Democratic primary and he has not listed any upcoming event. Bill Lee’s site has been updated with news since September 10, but he is updating his event calendar. This would suggest the challenger, Bill Lee, is trying to create interest in the race, where as the de facto incumbent, Jack Markell, is keeping race interest low to take advantage of the fact that low voter interest and election day turn out favors the incumbent. These two strategies—party ID and controlling information flow—are clearly from the traditional offline campaign playbook; the goal of campaigning is to win the election, it is not to enlighten voters or promote better democracy.
Campaign Journal One
For the remainder of the 2008 US elections, four races will be followed and examined in detail. They are the gubernatorial race of Delaware, the US House of Representatives races for the 5th district in Georgia, 8th district in Indiana, and 10th district in Pennsylvania. The Delaware gubernatorial race is the only open race of the four as the current governor, Ruth Minner, is term limited and ineligible for re-election. Each of the House races has an incumbent running for re-election, with Rep. John Lewis of Georgia’s 5th Congressional District running unopposed.
In Delaware, after a hard Democratic primary race, state treasurer Jack Markell beat Lt. Gov. John Carney, Jr. to take on Bill Lee (Republican), Mike Protack (Independent) – who dropped out of the race on September 13, and Jeff Brown (Blue Enigma). Since 1992, the Governor’s seat has been in the Democrat's hands and according to the Cook Report, the most competitive part of this race to succeed Gov. Minner was to be the Democratic primary. A brief review of the news stories concerning the candidates indicates that Markell’s biggest opponent and critic will remain former Democratic primary candidate Carney.
In Georgia, Rep. John Lewis will seek an unopposed re-election as representative to Georgia’s 5th Congressional District – a post he has held since 1986. In Indiana, the race for the 8th Congressional District appears to be non-competitive with incumbent Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Democrat) favored over rival Greg Goode (Republican). The most competitive race will most likely be for Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District; Chris Hackett (Republican) is challenging incumbent Rep. Chris Carney (Democrat). RealClearPolitics sums up the challenge this way:
Notably, all of the campaigns have active functioning websites, though in design, style and use of new media tools – video, blogs, social networks, etc. – the sites vary by party and challenger status, Democrat’s and incumbent’s use a higher level of design in their sites. In the case of the Delaware Governor’s race, neither the Democrat nor the Republican is the incumbent and both sites are similar in design. The exception is the website for the Blue Enigma Party and their candidate for governor, Jeff Brown. It is nothing more than an online brochure with no way to engage the candidate or participate in the campaign, other than email and a link to register as a voter.
In Delaware, after a hard Democratic primary race, state treasurer Jack Markell beat Lt. Gov. John Carney, Jr. to take on Bill Lee (Republican), Mike Protack (Independent) – who dropped out of the race on September 13, and Jeff Brown (Blue Enigma). Since 1992, the Governor’s seat has been in the Democrat's hands and according to the Cook Report, the most competitive part of this race to succeed Gov. Minner was to be the Democratic primary. A brief review of the news stories concerning the candidates indicates that Markell’s biggest opponent and critic will remain former Democratic primary candidate Carney.
In Georgia, Rep. John Lewis will seek an unopposed re-election as representative to Georgia’s 5th Congressional District – a post he has held since 1986. In Indiana, the race for the 8th Congressional District appears to be non-competitive with incumbent Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Democrat) favored over rival Greg Goode (Republican). The most competitive race will most likely be for Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District; Chris Hackett (Republican) is challenging incumbent Rep. Chris Carney (Democrat). RealClearPolitics sums up the challenge this way:
Rep. Christopher Carney represents a Northeast Pennsylvania district that gave President Bush 60% of the vote in 2004, and where Barack Obama did notably poorly in the state's April primary. That's not a recipe for success for a Democrat, especially one who won by challenging an incumbent with serious personal problems. Republicans are enthusiastic about businessman Chris Hackett (R), who won a competitive primary. (source)
Notably, all of the campaigns have active functioning websites, though in design, style and use of new media tools – video, blogs, social networks, etc. – the sites vary by party and challenger status, Democrat’s and incumbent’s use a higher level of design in their sites. In the case of the Delaware Governor’s race, neither the Democrat nor the Republican is the incumbent and both sites are similar in design. The exception is the website for the Blue Enigma Party and their candidate for governor, Jeff Brown. It is nothing more than an online brochure with no way to engage the candidate or participate in the campaign, other than email and a link to register as a voter.
Thought Paper: November 29
This semester has been a journey into the nature and issues surrounding new media, or more accurately, new digital media. Whether it is the Internet, cell phones, digital video, wired networks, or wi-fi, we have attempted to define it, its issues, and its impact on individuals and society. This has been accomplished through varied readings of the current scholars in cyber-studies. My first observation is that, as a whole, the authors have been advocates of the cyber-utopian view that digital technologies will cure the ills of society. From increased citizen participation in the democratic process to equality and social justice for under-represented ethnic and social communities, digital media, and its accompanying technologies will free the masses. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight (may of these books were published in the late 1990s and early 2000s, ancient times in cyber-history), we have seen that this early utopian view has not come to fruition and in some cases it has actually increase the gap between information haves and have-nots.
It is this point, "access", that has been a major theme through much of the readings and the subsequent class discussions. What we have seen is that access is a multifaceted issue and not the simplistic hardware and technology issue of early Internet policy debates. Leah A. Lievrouw’s essay in Media Access (eds. Bucy & Newhagen, 2004) does an admirable job of bringing the various issues and hypothesizing about access into her model of the information environment (p. 274). It attempts to show how the various dynamics of technology and infrastructure, content, uses and gratification, relevance, individual cognitive ability, usage and non-usage, social organization and culture (among many other variables) work together—or at odds with one another—to facilitate or hinder an individuals access to new media. Simplistic in its design, the model helps to illustrate the process of information acquisition, a process that is valid regardless of the media being “new” or traditional. A point that brings me back to my often-trumpeted claim that new media is subject to the same processes, theories, issues, accolades, and faults as any communication medium—newspapers, radio, or television. A quick review of my previous blog entries shows my question of the semester, “why does it continually surprise the scholars, policy experts and the public when digital media acts like the previous mass media and not in their utopian vision?” Digital media is a tool for communication, whether its machine-to-machine, human-to-machine, or human-to-human it is still just a tool—granted a very cool tool.
However, here is where I say that maybe there is sometime different about new digital media. My professor, Lance Porter, asked more than once, “Is there something inherently different about new media?” I have usually been one of the first to say “no,” it is not different just quicker. Now though I wish to explore a different line of thought, inspired this weeks reading, Society Online (Howard & Jones, 2004), and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)—read for another course I took this semester. In his essay, Steve Jones discusses the rise of the computer networks and the “network” metaphor for almost any connected entity—“religion, science, politics, and medicine—indeed, the gamut of human and natural behaviors—can be viewed from a network perspective” (cited Barabási, p. 327). He goes on to discuss how the increase in network speeds is quickly making instantaneous communication a reality. Jones quotes Tom DeFanti, co-director of the Electronic Visualization Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who envisions a time when networked immersive virtual reality devices will allow individuals located at various locations to meet at a time and a place of their choosing—a technology that creates a virtual space that is “better than being there.” The instantaneous nature of the technology is nearly already here—emails sent whenever from where ever, cell phones and sat phones that allow constant voice, text and data access from anywhere in the world, and searching and information at “your finger tips” via the Internet. It is this instantaneousness of the technology that makes me wonder what the impact will be on society.
The breaking-up of time from space, makes me wonder about unexpected consequences. What could happen if one no longer needed to go anywhere, because the technology let you be anywhere at anytime and in any time—past, present, or future? Postman cites Lewis Mumford (Technics and Civilization, 1934), that the invention of the clock [a new technology in the 14th century] had “the effect of disassociating time from human events.” It changed how people thought about time and space, and things and processes. Mumford argues that this invention, nurtured the belief of “an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences,” and diminished the role of God and nature in man’s machinery timed world. It separated man from the natural elements of sun and seasons, now we are at the cusp of further separating man now from the natural environment of “place” or location. People will not only be “disassociating” time, but also “place” from human events.
My intention here is not to be a naysayer, but to only say maybe we should think of the possible consequences of everything and anything being instantaneously available—information, data, conversation, entertainment, etc… American society loves cool new stuff with little forethought to its negative implications. Hype and marketing will never let us forget to the benefits to society this next "new thing" will bring, but little attention is paid to problems. It seems that we, as a society, have become more rude, dissatisfied, and impatient because of our current near-instantaneous technology of cell phone and email. People can initiate contact with another at a moments notice and they expect near instantaneous reply, regardless of the other persons situation. If people get instant gratification in the digital world, how will they deal will the “mañana” reality of the physical world? What will come next?
Postman suggests that each new medium brought with it new and unexpected consequences to human thought and behavior. Speech brought rhetorical conversation, print allowed more thoughtful and deliberate discourse, and television trivialized ideas, so only time will tell what impact to thought, and discourse new digital technologies will bring to or have on society. As an optimist, I believe time, innovation, unexpected uses (popular culture), market competition, and unpredictable humans (resistant communities) will moderate or solve the problems, difficulties, and quarks presented by new media, just as they have with all previous media.
Person note: When I signed up for this class I thought, "great a new media course for my first semester, I can have an easy course in my comfort zone." I was wrong, this course has allowed me and forced me to challenge, explore, and probe my preconceived notions of new media. I suspect, like many in the class, I though of new media in turns of technology, design, hardware, and economics. This class has opened my eyes to a new field of inquiry, critical cultural studies. More than any other graduate (masters) course I have taken in the past, this class has expanded my vision to further my scholarship of exploring new media, political communication and its impacts.
It is this point, "access", that has been a major theme through much of the readings and the subsequent class discussions. What we have seen is that access is a multifaceted issue and not the simplistic hardware and technology issue of early Internet policy debates. Leah A. Lievrouw’s essay in Media Access (eds. Bucy & Newhagen, 2004) does an admirable job of bringing the various issues and hypothesizing about access into her model of the information environment (p. 274). It attempts to show how the various dynamics of technology and infrastructure, content, uses and gratification, relevance, individual cognitive ability, usage and non-usage, social organization and culture (among many other variables) work together—or at odds with one another—to facilitate or hinder an individuals access to new media. Simplistic in its design, the model helps to illustrate the process of information acquisition, a process that is valid regardless of the media being “new” or traditional. A point that brings me back to my often-trumpeted claim that new media is subject to the same processes, theories, issues, accolades, and faults as any communication medium—newspapers, radio, or television. A quick review of my previous blog entries shows my question of the semester, “why does it continually surprise the scholars, policy experts and the public when digital media acts like the previous mass media and not in their utopian vision?” Digital media is a tool for communication, whether its machine-to-machine, human-to-machine, or human-to-human it is still just a tool—granted a very cool tool.
However, here is where I say that maybe there is sometime different about new digital media. My professor, Lance Porter, asked more than once, “Is there something inherently different about new media?” I have usually been one of the first to say “no,” it is not different just quicker. Now though I wish to explore a different line of thought, inspired this weeks reading, Society Online (Howard & Jones, 2004), and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)—read for another course I took this semester. In his essay, Steve Jones discusses the rise of the computer networks and the “network” metaphor for almost any connected entity—“religion, science, politics, and medicine—indeed, the gamut of human and natural behaviors—can be viewed from a network perspective” (cited Barabási, p. 327). He goes on to discuss how the increase in network speeds is quickly making instantaneous communication a reality. Jones quotes Tom DeFanti, co-director of the Electronic Visualization Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who envisions a time when networked immersive virtual reality devices will allow individuals located at various locations to meet at a time and a place of their choosing—a technology that creates a virtual space that is “better than being there.” The instantaneous nature of the technology is nearly already here—emails sent whenever from where ever, cell phones and sat phones that allow constant voice, text and data access from anywhere in the world, and searching and information at “your finger tips” via the Internet. It is this instantaneousness of the technology that makes me wonder what the impact will be on society.
The breaking-up of time from space, makes me wonder about unexpected consequences. What could happen if one no longer needed to go anywhere, because the technology let you be anywhere at anytime and in any time—past, present, or future? Postman cites Lewis Mumford (Technics and Civilization, 1934), that the invention of the clock [a new technology in the 14th century] had “the effect of disassociating time from human events.” It changed how people thought about time and space, and things and processes. Mumford argues that this invention, nurtured the belief of “an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences,” and diminished the role of God and nature in man’s machinery timed world. It separated man from the natural elements of sun and seasons, now we are at the cusp of further separating man now from the natural environment of “place” or location. People will not only be “disassociating” time, but also “place” from human events.
My intention here is not to be a naysayer, but to only say maybe we should think of the possible consequences of everything and anything being instantaneously available—information, data, conversation, entertainment, etc… American society loves cool new stuff with little forethought to its negative implications. Hype and marketing will never let us forget to the benefits to society this next "new thing" will bring, but little attention is paid to problems. It seems that we, as a society, have become more rude, dissatisfied, and impatient because of our current near-instantaneous technology of cell phone and email. People can initiate contact with another at a moments notice and they expect near instantaneous reply, regardless of the other persons situation. If people get instant gratification in the digital world, how will they deal will the “mañana” reality of the physical world? What will come next?
Postman suggests that each new medium brought with it new and unexpected consequences to human thought and behavior. Speech brought rhetorical conversation, print allowed more thoughtful and deliberate discourse, and television trivialized ideas, so only time will tell what impact to thought, and discourse new digital technologies will bring to or have on society. As an optimist, I believe time, innovation, unexpected uses (popular culture), market competition, and unpredictable humans (resistant communities) will moderate or solve the problems, difficulties, and quarks presented by new media, just as they have with all previous media.
Person note: When I signed up for this class I thought, "great a new media course for my first semester, I can have an easy course in my comfort zone." I was wrong, this course has allowed me and forced me to challenge, explore, and probe my preconceived notions of new media. I suspect, like many in the class, I though of new media in turns of technology, design, hardware, and economics. This class has opened my eyes to a new field of inquiry, critical cultural studies. More than any other graduate (masters) course I have taken in the past, this class has expanded my vision to further my scholarship of exploring new media, political communication and its impacts.
Thought Paper: November 15
Kathryn Montgomery’s Generation Digital (2007) is a walk down memory-lane. It is amazing that the events of less than ten years ago are now footnotes in the history of digital media. How relevant is discussing Bolt.com as a social networking model when now Facebook and MySpace dominate the cyberscape, and even at the time, teens preferred the chat rooms and IM'ing on AOL? Even the competition was not the total demise for Bolt.com, video and music sharing actually killed them (copyright infringement). How relevant is it to consider all children in this discourse, pre-teens (Barbie.com) to nearly 18-somethings (Rock the Vote). As a society, the nearly-adults have always been given more freedom—working, driving, and more freedom to make personal choices—and pre-teens and early teens have always been more protected and afforded less personal freedom. Why would or should their freedom of action be different in the Internet environment? In the offline world of television, marketing companies, advertising companies, and product producers (toys, cereal, or tobacco) have been restricted on what they can promote to children, why should companies be granted unrestricted access just because it is the new digital world. Of course, big business wanted to keep the Internet unregulated, they saw dollars—huge amounts of dollars—from this un-exploited kid market, but society has always restricted their access to kids. Just because the technology is new and different, does not change the concept of society protecting children.
I tend to err on the side of “freedoms” and less regulation, but in hindsight, COPPA seems to have done more good than harm. Now companies seem to be erring on the side of caution for fear of penalties or further government oversight or legislation. One could even argue that other forces, such as the Internet-bubble burst of the late 1990s and music industry lawsuits over kid website’s p2p capabilities, have dampened the enthusiasm to develop and operate kid-oriented sites. Is COPPA the best legislation to protect children—the vulnerable pre-teens and early teens—and still allow the free movement of information and ideas? Probably not, but for now it works. Moreover, with everything dealing with digital media, COPPA will soon be irrelevant, as technology and usage will leave it behind. I disagree with Montgomery, this new digital age is not redefining childhood; it is redefining our concept of regulation. Regulation involving digital media should not be ironclad legislation—once it is enacted, it is nearly impossible to change—but should be time-limited acts that are designed to be debated from time-to-time to enable the regulations to keep pace with technology and usage.
On a personal note, I have found this book to be the most uninteresting, what’s-the-point book we have had to read—history without insight or worse, out-of-date and irrelevant insight. Business—targeting products to kids, mining personal and private family information from children and children's unrestricted access to porn—are bad, regulations to protect children—COPPA—are appropriate, and parents using measures to impede the viewing of “harmful” content—talking with their kids about the Internet, and using NetNanny or CyberPatrol—are good. If parents (of course, I have no children) took a more active roll in monitoring their children’s digital activities and established guideline of appropriate disclosure and participation much of the “harm to children” debate would be moot. Unfortunately, as in the offline world, many parents want society to be responsible for bring up their children.
I tend to err on the side of “freedoms” and less regulation, but in hindsight, COPPA seems to have done more good than harm. Now companies seem to be erring on the side of caution for fear of penalties or further government oversight or legislation. One could even argue that other forces, such as the Internet-bubble burst of the late 1990s and music industry lawsuits over kid website’s p2p capabilities, have dampened the enthusiasm to develop and operate kid-oriented sites. Is COPPA the best legislation to protect children—the vulnerable pre-teens and early teens—and still allow the free movement of information and ideas? Probably not, but for now it works. Moreover, with everything dealing with digital media, COPPA will soon be irrelevant, as technology and usage will leave it behind. I disagree with Montgomery, this new digital age is not redefining childhood; it is redefining our concept of regulation. Regulation involving digital media should not be ironclad legislation—once it is enacted, it is nearly impossible to change—but should be time-limited acts that are designed to be debated from time-to-time to enable the regulations to keep pace with technology and usage.
On a personal note, I have found this book to be the most uninteresting, what’s-the-point book we have had to read—history without insight or worse, out-of-date and irrelevant insight. Business—targeting products to kids, mining personal and private family information from children and children's unrestricted access to porn—are bad, regulations to protect children—COPPA—are appropriate, and parents using measures to impede the viewing of “harmful” content—talking with their kids about the Internet, and using NetNanny or CyberPatrol—are good. If parents (of course, I have no children) took a more active roll in monitoring their children’s digital activities and established guideline of appropriate disclosure and participation much of the “harm to children” debate would be moot. Unfortunately, as in the offline world, many parents want society to be responsible for bring up their children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)