last blog

I cannot believe that we have come to the end of the semester. Time sure flies by! I must confess that when I enrolled for this class my purpose was to obtain three extra elective credits that I needed in order to graduate in May. I registered late and so Communications 240 was pretty much my only option, along with Macroeconomics 340. Given the fact that I didn’t have a variety of classes to choose from when I registered for the fall semester, I prayed that this class would be fun and challenging and I am very happy that my prayers came true. I find the knowledge that I have acquired during our weekly lectures to be very useful in today’s changing world. This class has motivated me to keep expanding this knowledge so that I can contribute to the new media culture in a positive way.

 

During the past couple of lectures one particular subject that caught my attention is e-waste, and I would like to use this last blog to talk about it. As we have learned throuought  this class technology is changing at a fast pace. An Ipod that is considered ‘trendy’ this year will not be as cool one or two years from now. The same goes for a cell phone, a computer or a TV. According to a National Geographic article I recently read “All told, the EPA estimates that in the U.S. that year, between 1.5 and 1.9 million tons of computers, TVs, VCRs, monitors, cell phones, and other equipment were discarded.” So what happens to all this ‘high-tech trash’ that we create? Where does it go? As we have seen in the video that was played during lecture, the U.S. has no efficient plants that can recycle the e-waste we continually produce, and so it ends up in land fills in countries like China and Taiwan.

 

We have learned during this course about the benefits technology brings to our society, community and the world in general. But are those benefits good enough that they offset the ethical issues involving e-waste? Can we even say that technology is beneficial considering the negative effects of e-dumping?

 

I would like to believe that in the future we will create plants that can effectivley recycle e-waste and that environmantally friendly materials will be used in the production of new technology. However I do believe that for now we have to make it our job to reduce e-waste as well as raise awarness of this growing problem. We can start in small steps such as keeping our cell phone or ipod longer and donating used computers to schools or charities that can use them. So please talk to everyone you know about this growing concern.

 

 

Thank you!

 

 

You can find useful information on e-waste and where/how to donate your old pc at:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text/2

http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-computing/reviews/10139.aspx

http://chicago.oodle.com/donate/tips/

 

 

 

 

reading rseponse 5

Today’s reading touched on electronic democracy, presenting conflicting views on the internet as a ‘utopian’ public sphere. After doing more research about e-democracy the general definition I found was: E-democracy is “a combination of the words “electronic” and “democracy,” comprises the use of electronic communications technologies such as the Internet in enhancing democratic processes within a democratic republic or representative democracy.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_democracy)

 

Advocates of e-democracy argue that the internet allows for the political process to be more democratic and inclusive. While I agree with this argument, I cannot help but think of the ‘negative’ role of the internet in its contribution to making the political process free and inclusive.First, the digital divide is one obstacle to participation, as not everyone has access to the internet or other means of communication that make participation in public policy making easier. The second argument that comes into mind is that the internet isn’t really a ‘free’ medium of communication because online speech can be constrained to ways similar to those in the real world.

 

I must say that I find the subject of e-democracy very fascinating. First it is because my views on the subject were kind of focused on the idea that the internet is really free, that it is a place where people can come together and express their oppinions on any subject matter without any constraints. But my own experience with the internet proved my old view to be wrong.

 

My old believe that the internet is a ‘free’ medium of communication is strongly related to the environment I grew up in. Being raised in a relativley small and communist country (at the time), I did not have internet access till I was eighteen years old. My only access to information was a tv that played shows about how great out former president was all day long. So, a while after the Revollution in 1989, when I could finally get access to other means of information, such as the internet, I found myself part of this new and different world. In this world I was free to express my views, get easier access to information, meet people who had similar life experiences as myself, etc.        

 

But as I grew up and I became more acquainted with this ‘new world’ I learned that it was more complex than I had originally thought. First online speech can be censored and thus constrained to the norms of the real world and second, the concept of the ‘self’ in the virtual world makes it hard to know if a person’s opinion on a subject coincides with his/her ‘real’ opinion. So, in conclusion, the internet can both positively and negatively contribute to the development and implementation of e-democracy. And the extent to which the internet’s contribution can be negative or positive depends a great deal on the way each individual views the internet as well as the role that it plays in our lives.

 

Given this digital gap and the fact that technology develops at an increasing pace will countries that do not have or have limited access to new forms of technologies ever catch up? If they do and the digital gap becomes smaller/non existent, how will this affect e-democracy?

 

Wikipedia.org also has a lot of useful information on the concept of e-democracy.

 

reading response 4

“The fact that online communication is ‘cues filtered out’ interaction with no physical codes to locate gender, race or class is the basis for arguing that the Internet facilitates the development of different experiences of identity and different experiences of group belonging” (Lister 169). While it is true that a person’s identity as well as character is easier to reveal in ‘face to face’ communication, it is not totally absent in computer-mediated communication (CMC). Furthermore, it has been proved that the ways in which we behave online can be connected to one’s gender, as Susan C. Herring of UTA University suggests in her essay on “Gender Issues in CMC-Findings and Implications”.

            First, a person’s experience of identity has to do with his/hers choice to remain anonymous. Many people chose not to give their real name while posting in a news group or while instant chatting. But as S. Herring points out keeping one’s identity anonymous is not easy, especially for inexperienced users. Also a lot of users, depending on the environment they communicate in, “are not necessarily interested in exploiting the potential for anonymous interaction-the use of one’s real name lends accountability and a seriousness of purpose to one’s words that anonymous messages lack”

(http://cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring/view). As a very active mmo player and a regular gaming (and not only) forum browser I know this to be very true. I have ran across many instances where an anonymous user would spam the forums with nonsense, leading to him/her having little to no credibility when actually making a serious post.

            Second, behaviors that trigger gender awareness in face to face interactions can also be found in computer-mediated communication. For example women are inclined to be more polite than men,they use less profanity and they are more likely to report harassment. Assertiveness, typed representations of smiling and laughter, and the degree of interactive engagement have also been linked to one’s gender, as S. Herrings suggests: “In asynchronous CMC that takes place in discussion lists and newsgroups on the Internet and Usenet, males are more likely to post longer messages, begin and close discussions in mixed-sex groups, assert opinions strongly as “facts”, use crude language (including insults and profanity), and in general, manifest an adversarial orientation towards their interlocutors”. Of course there are exceptions, but it can be said that generally these findings have been proved to closely correlate to one’s gender.

            In light of these findings how will CMC evolve? Will it ever be an entirely ‘democratic and egalitarian medium?’

reading response 3

While reading the weekly news I stumbled upon an article in a Romanian newspaper called ‘Adevarul’ (‘The Truth’) that talkes about visual culture versus books. More specifically the article criticizes Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (mmorpgs or mmos) as being a ‘bad influence’ on teenagers, who prefer to log on and play for hours after classes are over, instead of reading a book or participating in more ‘culturally stimulating’ activities such as going to the theatre or art events.

            I must admit that there are some good points there which support the author’s argument that mmos can be bad for someone. For example a person can become too absorbed by the game’s virtual world and therefore lose interest in real world activities. However, I couldn’t help asking myself: “Which is better for a person’s intellectual development, a book or a mmorpg? And just how bad are mmorpgs for our society?”

            Upon reflecting on the first question I must say that there is no answer that favors one activity over the other. Both forms of media, old and new, can stimulate one’s intellect in different ways. A book contributes to the development of our imagination while accentuating the expressivity of words. This, in turn, leads to the development of critical thinking which models the way we look at life and the world in general. A mmo can provide us with the opportunity to take control in a community by becoming leaders and organizing player-vs-player (pvp) events such as raids on the opposing faction’s city or “player vs environment/computer” (pve) events, such as dungeons. Because these events are so complex, they require a lot of attention and thought, from organization to implementation. Thi not only helps develop one’s intellect but also social and leadership skills.

            The second question is a lot harder to answer, but I’ll give it a shot. From the previous paragraph we can conclude that mmos do have a positive influence on our culture depending on the role we assume in its virtual world. However, I do agree with the article’s point that a mmo can have a negative influence on our society. People often become too absorbed by their virtual world to the point that they ‘forget’ about the real world and their duties within it. Some people can play for days without taking breaks, therefore neglecting important things such as one’s health or job. I guess their choice comes from the natural desire or need to escape the real world, but how far and for how long we want to escape depends on each individual. Therefore we can’t blame mmos entirely for the choices we make.

 

you can find more information on mmos at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

reading response 2

This week I continued to read about technology and its impact on human culture, past and present. The one thing that struck me as interesting was the way each new technology brings with it hopes and doubts. The doubts usually arise from our natural fear of the unknown, and our hesitance to embrace change. The impact of a new technology can sometimes cause unforeseen reactions in society, most of which are ultimately beneficial.

            One particularly interesting article I read was “From Paints to Prints: The Impact of Photography on Portraiture”, from the winter 2002 edition of the UAB Magazine. The article discusses the invention of photography in the early 19^th century and how it was viewed by portrait painters of the time. The reactions were mixed. The author notes that

“…portraiture seemed to be threatened with obsolescence by the photographic image” and many artists spoke out against this new technology which threatened their livelihood.

Some painters dismissed photography as “too mechanical” and without a soul. Others embraced it, and some painters even became photographers. But eventually, even those painters who disliked the new technology came to terms with it. They could use photographs as a base for a painting, as opposed to drawing the live subject first.

            As a reaction to photography, painters started to point out the differences between art and technology, by emphasizing the colors and brushstrokes on their paintings: “it was this period that saw the birth of Impressionism, a style that features daubs of unmixed colors that are blended only by the eyes of the viewer”. These were artists who wanted to make a statement about painting, and to let the public know that painting had not become obsolete because of photography. They emphasized their art, the soul of their paintings, and the emotion which could not be matched by a simple photograph.

            Everyone has heard of masters like Van Gogh, and later Picasso. I think their genius and the style of their paintings could not have existed without the new schools of painting such as Impressionism that came out as a response to photography. So even though the reactions to this new technology were initially both good and bad, I feel that we benefited in many ways from it. Painting did not lose out, but found new ways to evolve and impress us.

            I wonder if anything was lost in the world of painting because of photography. Would painting have evolved in the same way? Did we miss out on other styles of painting that would have evolved had photography not been invented?

           

response to this week’s reading

Chapter one starts out by discussing the term new media and its uses in popular cultures. It discusses the reasons for using the word ‘new’ to apply to the new technological advances in the media by calling some of the late 20^th and early 21^st century technologies new instead of referring to them by their technical names such as digital or electronic. Corporations and various parts of society can include in this term whatever types of technology they choose while adding or discarding technologies as they become obsolete.

            The authors also state that people apply the term ‘new media’ to convey a feeling of a new but already established set of technologies, however as the authors point out many different technologies from digital television to the internet are ever changing or are just new implementations of old technologies. Digital television for example is just a new delivery format for the old technology of television.

            I agree with the authors when they express the sentiment that the new media is used and manipulated for different purposes whether by corporations or users.  Corporations use the word to imply a sense of change and to often describe themselves as hip and cool, not part of the old order. This has been done as the authors point out since the 20^th century and even before that, having its roots in the 19^th century. By creating the feeling that something is new they are trying to convince consumers that they are living in the future so to speak or that the technological changes they are experiencing are radically different than what has come before.

            In my opinion technology advances all the time and applying the term new to our current technology versus technology of the past or the future is purely arbitrary. There is no single term that can encompass the different stages of technological advancements that are often old technologies changing into new ones such as radio, television or new media that appear such as the internet.

            In order to get a better understanding of what is ‘new media’ and how we should go about studying and understanding it I searched the term on wikipedia.org. The article that I found on there says that the term is “meant to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the latter part of the 20th century.” and that “most technologies described as “new media” are digital, often having characteristics of being manipulable, networkable, dense, compressible, and impartial.” The authors also point that out by stating that in defining new media it is important that we make a distinction between difference and novelty because when talking about new media we are also thinking about “what might be different about the combination of old and new patterns that they entail”. These different paterns are similar to the ones I found in the article I read and they are: digitality, interactivity, hypertextuality, dispersal, and virtuality. In light of this distinction what is the best way to study and understand ‘new media’? Is it by analyzing the different types of ‘new’ media and their impact on society ?

You can find more information relating to the article about ‘new media’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!