'The splintering of the fourth estate' and its effects on journalism

This article will consider how the diminution of traditional intermediaries is changing the role of publishing in social life, by analysing journalism in particular, and examine its positive and negative impacts as well as take into consideration the future of publishing.

The fourth estate refers to the eighteenth-century claim that the press was entitled to its own independent standing in the political system, as the “Fourth Estate” (Schultz 1998, p. 15). This term was coined by Edmund Burke during a parliamentary debate in 1787, who used it in reference to the three estates in Parliament: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons (Wikipedia 2014a). Modern news media and those engaged in its production continue to embrace this role, however in recent times this has been challenged (Schultz 1998, p. 15). Schultz (1998) claimed that the Fourth estate role has passed from news media as an institution to journalists, editors and producers. I would argue that at present, this has gone even further, not just passed to journalists, editors and producers and professionals in the media industry but to ordinary people due to the proliferation of distribution via the internet and in particular social media. This is what Alan Rusbridger meant by “the splintering of the fourth estate” (The Guardian 2010).

Photo: Peter Denton

 Rusbridger mentioned how social media, Twitter in particular, has challenged the notions of authority in journalism. Instead of relying on the expert opinion of journalists, Twitter users rely on a “peer to peer” authority. People are more likely to agree with the opinion of someone who share the same values and beliefs as them, perhaps someone from a similar age group. Although it should be pointed out that this does not mean Twitter users completely ignore journalists and news corporations, according to him they have become their most effective distributers and aggregators (The Guardian 2010). However, it can still be argued that we no longer rely on traditional intermediaries for news and opinions and Twitter is the perfect example.

This has changed the role of publishing in social life. In my opinion this has brought about numerous positives. Many events have transpired as a result of this shift in the power of distribution. A perfect example would be the impacts of citizen journalism, which is defined "as an alternative and activist form of newsgathering and reporting that functions outside mainstream media institutions, often as a repose to shortcoming in the professional journalistic field and is driven by different objectives and ideals and relies on alternative sources of legitimacy than traditional or mainstream journalism” (Wikipedia 2014b). In short, it is based on public citizens playing an active role in aggregating and distributing news and information. An example of this would be Wikileaks, which is an international, online, non-profit, journalistic organisation which publishes secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources (Wikipedia 2014c). It was through this that events like the Arab Spring was made possible. After the leaking of diplomatic cables that gave evidence of the brutality of the regime in Egypt via Wikileaks, protesters capitalized on the internet and spread this knowledge by using media such as Facebook and Twitter (Mabon 2013, p.1852). The combined effect of Wikileaks and the use of social media to spread eye witness accounts helped protestors to bypass the traditional media institutions and spread the information throughout the world, which increased pressure on the regime and countered the propaganda of the pro-regime media (Mabon 2013, p.1852).

Photo: Mosa'ab Elshamy

More recently, there was a story in the media about how two rival drug cartels in Tamaulipas have final say over what gets printed or broadcast in the local media. This resulted in the people of the state turning to social media to share information about organized crime and its infiltration of the government. This was made possible through a Facebook group - Valor por Tamaulipas (which means Courage for Tamaulipas), the most popular citizen news hub in the state. Dr Fuentes Rubio was an administrator for the page and her Twitter account was also used to share information about possible shootouts within the heavy gang and drug cartel community (DailyMail 2014). This is another fine example of citizen journalism making an impact by bypassing the traditional gatekeepers, who at times may be corrupt or biased. Unfortunately, Dr Rubio was killed by the cartel but we can say without hesitation that she made an impact by spreading awareness not only in her city but worldwide. This would not have been possible had the power of traditional intermediaries, in this case the biased local media, not been diminished by our ability to communicate with each other without going through them.  

It is interesting to note that the impacts even extend to journalists themselves, who are supposedly part of the ‘fourth estate’. According to Rusbridger many of the best reporters are now using Twitter as an aid to finding information. This may be simple requests for knowledge that 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”. It could also be journalists using Twitter to find witnesses to specific events (The Guardian 2010). Journalists themselves are relying on the opinions of citizens through social media. This is a perfect example of the splintering of the fourth estate and how publishing is changing. I will not disagree with the fact that this is truly transformative and has many positives, but I do have some issues to raise with what is happening.

Rusbridger gave an example of how it’s a fantastic form of distribution and marketing. He said, “I only have 18,500 followers. But if I get retweeted by one of our columnists, Charlie Brooker, I reach a further 200,000. If Guardian Technology picks it up it goes to an audience of 1.6 million. If Stephen Fry notices it, it's global.” (The Guardian 2010). This is all well and good, but what dictates the power of one’s distribution? Why does it get global when Stephen Fry notices it and not when Charlie Brooker retweets it? It may bypass traditional gatekeepers, but in my opinion this comes with its own pitfalls. It seems to put power in the hands of celebrities, or ‘experts’ in a particular area. They can aggregate, curate and disseminate news of their choosing. It may not mean that we have to listen to them but it is without a doubt that their opinions will be distributed to a much wider audience. Is that better than having the press as an institution, especially if many people affiliate with the person? Can we allow the opinion of one person to dictate how we feel? What happens if someone pays Julian Assange (the founder of Wikileaks) a billion dollars to leak fake news?

A perfect example is how Brazilian football player Neymar recently posted a video to his Facebook page declaring his support for Presidential candidate Aécio Neves in the recent Brazilian election. He has 48,824,028 likes on Facebook which means this post reached that amount of people (Facebook 2014). That is an astonishing amount of people. While I may not listen to a footballer’s political opinion, what about those who are poorly educated and idolise him? What about those who affiliate with him as a person? It is safe to say that football is a huge sport in Brazil and he is a hero to many. He may feel justified in his opinion, but this opinion may not be based on a balanced argument nor result in an outcome that is beneficial for all, perhaps just for him. I’m not saying he is doing this but I am pointing out that this is possible. This is one of the reasons why I feel bypassing traditional gatekeepers brings about its own problems.

Photo: Ry

 Let’s move on to the ‘experts’. Prominent bloggers often make their living by getting paid for advertisements. An example would be PayPerPost, one of several services that introduce companies to bloggers willing to write nice things about their products for a fee (Trilling 2006, p.26). Prominent bloggers would have more influence over our opinions than just a regular person. Since these very bloggers are being targeted by advertisers, how can we trust their opinion? The issue here is credibility. An example of the potential risks of the lack of credibility would a Facebook page that reports news events in Mount Gambier, in South Australia. This is run solely by one person, 25 year old Josh Lynagh. There are 8,300 people following his page, a third of Mount Gambier’s population, compared to the local newspaper The Border Watch that has 4,500 followers and ABC South East South Australia has just over 2,000. While he has received a lot of positive feedback for keeping the community in the loop, I feel that there are risks involved in citizen journalism.

According to Dr Vincent O’Donnell, a media commentator from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the page “has the presentation of a legitimate news site, but was presenting gossip, not news.”

"It's a bit like sitting in a town square on market day and all the old gossips are there competing to tell stories - a lot of the new media are like that."

He goes on to say that the danger of such social media pages is that there is no way for the reader to cross-check for unsubstantiated information and that too many of these sites put too high a value on being first with a story rather than being correct with the story (ABC 2014). This example shows how citizen journalism may not have the credibility of traditional media, which is another issue brought about by the “splintering of the fourth estate”.

But this raises a more important question, does this not mean that in order for a journalist or news article to be taken seriously, it has to pass through the traditional gatekeepers?  If that is the case, then maybe we cannot say that it has truly been transformative since news still has to pass through traditional intermediaries to be taken seriously. However, I feel that citizen journalism at least brings some issues to light that the traditional media might miss, but perhaps the responsibility of spreading this news to a wider audience and providing credibility still lies with the traditional gatekeepers. Going back to the story of Dr Rubio and the Mexican cartel, if it was not reported by major news agencies, I doubt any of us would have heard of it. However, this is where my argument about the issue of credibility reaches its limit. To take it further it would require substantial data, how much more credible do we find traditional intermediaries compared to new forms of media - and does a story have to pass through a traditional intermediary to gain traction and credibility? A news story may stem from a citizen journalist, but will the mass public hear about it or believe it without it being disseminated by the traditional media?

Another issue I have to raise is that the potential problems do not stop with just celebrities or ‘experts’, the internet and social media allows political parties to directly inform citizens, bypassing the fourth estate (Weaver et al., 2007, cited in Vergeer  2012,  p.10). It is easier for politicians to influence citizens without the press critiquing and mediating on behalf of the public.

Looking towards the future, there is also the concern about maintaining net neutrality. Net neutrality assures equal access for users and service providers by imposing rules on those who own the infrastructure, preventing them from discriminating in throttling back the bit rates of services flowing through their network (Gargano 2011, p.74).  Net neutrality is needed in order for “the splintering of the fourth estate” to bring about positives such as citizen journalism. We have to maintain net neutrality or there will no longer be an equal voice and being able to bypass traditional intermediaries might actually bring about more negatives than positives as certain people or organisations might have a monopoly on disseminating information, but this time there will be nobody to mediate what is said due to the bypassing of these intermediaries. There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. If these internet service providers win the battle against net neutrality, then certain companies and people will have a monopoly over the web, and this is indeed scary. Would citizen journalists and the general public be able to voice their concerns if the internet is controlled by a handful of people? Advocates warn that by charging every Web site, from the smallest blogger to Google, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay (Wikipedia 2014d). What happens if companies, famous bloggers, celebrities, politicians and the like have unequal access to the web and stifle the opinions of others? Will only a handful of people be dictating our opinion and sentiment?

Photo: Bryan Moore

It is evident that while “the splintering of the fourth estate” and the new-found ability of regular people to aggregate and distribute information has been transformative and has brought above many positives, there are many questions and issued to be considered such as those I have raised in this article.  

REFERENCES

ABC 2014, The rise and fall of citizen journalism, ABC South East SA, accessed 2 November 2014, <http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/05/14/4004510.htm>.

Daily Mail 2014, 'Today my life comes to an end': Mexican drug cartel tracks down crusading citizen journalist and slays her - then uses her own Twitter account to boast about it, Daily Mail, accessed 1 November 2014, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804371/Today-life-comes-end-Mexican-drug-cartel-tracks-crusading-citizen-journalist-slays-using-Twitter-account-announce-death.html>.

Facebook 2014, neymarjr, Facebook, accessed 2 November 2014, <https://www.facebook.com/neymarjr>

Gargano, A. R. 2011, “Net Neutrality”, Broadcast Engineering, vol.53, no. 2.

Schultz, J. 1998, Reviving the fourth estate : democracy, accountability and the media, Cambridge, Melbourne.

Trilling, D. 2006, 'FIVE WAYS COMPANIES CAN USE THE INTERNET TO TARGET YOUR WALLET', New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4807, p. 26.

The Guardian 2010, The splintering of the fourth estate, The Guardian, accessed November 1 2014, <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/19/open-collaborative-future-journalism>.

Vergeer, M. 2012, ‘Politics, elections and online campaigning: Past, present . . . and a peek into the future’, New media & Society, vol.15, no.1, pp. 9–17.

Wikipedia 2014a, Fourth Estate, Wikipedia, accessed 1 November 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate#cite_note-OED6a-4>.

Wikipedia 2014b, Citizen journalism, Wikipedia, accessed 1 November 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism>.

Wikipedia 2014c, WikiLeaks, Wikipedia, accessed 1 November 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks>.

Wikipedia 2014d, Net neutrality, Wikipedia, accessed 2 November 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality>.

PHOTO CREDITS

Denton, P. 2014, accessed 6 November 2014, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdenton/4319985577/">Peter Denton</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">cc</a>.

Elshamy, M. 2014, accessed 6 November 2014, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mosaaberising/6950520864/">Mosa'aberising</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>.

Ry., 2014, accessed 6 November 2014, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/drl/14324642660/">drl.</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>.

Moore, B. 2014, accessed 6 November 2014, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/doctabu/3659665238/">Brian Lane Winfield Moore</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>.

Distribution and Aggregation

In Danah Boyd's talk, she mentioned that we live inside streams of content and information - adding to it, consuming it, and redirecting it.

I started to consider how I am doing that. How distributed or aggregated am I when it comes to content and information? I suppose I use Twitter to gain access to news - whether it be sports, or news in general and I guess I am aggregating different sources into one news feed. I actually think its a lot easier to get news from Twitter because it's actually the stuff I want to read.

Danah Boyd mentioned that people "who are most enamored with services like Twitter talk passionately about feeling as though they are living and breathing with the world around them, peripherally aware and in-tune, adding content to the stream and grabbing it when appropriate", in this case I suppose I only 'grab' and not add to it as I don't 'distribute' much content on Twitter, perhaps I retweet something interesting once in awhile but that's pretty much it.

Going back to the lecture, I found it interesting how new forms of publishing allow us to transform other forms of distribution. An example given was Facebook, emotions, feelings and thoughts can be distributed through this tool. I suppose this is quite true, not just posting text on your news feed, but links, pictures, videos... I guess it could be considered 'distributing' emotions, feelings and thoughts in the form of different types of publishing, even commenting on your friends' posts and what they've 'distributed' can distribute your thoughts, feelings and emotions.

Moving back to Danah Boyd's talk, another thing I found interesting was how she mentioned that the barriers to distribution are collapsing and that what matters is not the act of distribution, but the act of consumption. In a networked structure, anyone can get content to another person. According to her, "the power is no longer in the hands of those who control the channels of distribution, but those who control the limited resource of attention" and "it's no longer about push; it's about pull". I agree with this to a certain extent, the fact that I use Twitter to aggregate the news that I want to read proves her point that the power is in my hands. However, there is also the issue of credibility. I feel that traditional news broadcasters still have the power, not in terms of channels of distribution, but the content itself, for example I would not believe news from a shoddy website. Then again, that also proves that I still have the absolute power to choose what content to access...


REFERENCES
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/87704:what-is-implied-by-living-in-a-world-of-flow
http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/Web2Expo.html

Visualisation in scientific research and the communication of science

I found visualisation in the communication of science (within the public sphere) really interesting. As I've mentioned in my previous post, things like this often go unnoticed and people don't bother to look at them, especially when they've heard about it time and time again. But visualisations just make you see and realise how important certain issues are without having to go through numbers and facts. Take this for example, when you look at it you can see just how its going to impact us. Its not just numbers and facts anymore, it shows how we are going to be directly affected.

Upon some further research, I've also realised that visualisations have been around for a really long time and some of the most famous ones have impacted us profoundly.

 Dr John Snow's map of cholera spread in London.

His map of outbreaks in 19th Century London showed that cases were clustered around a water pump, thanks to contamination from germs, which was then a new idea, this changed the way we saw a disease. (BBC, 2014).

When Florence Nightingale demonstrated that more soldiers in the Crimean War died in hospitals from preventable epidemic diseases than on the battlefield she helped to save countless lives.

Its amazing to think how much visualisations have changed the course of history, and it makes me consider how its going to impact our future. I'm positive visualisations will aid us in terms of science and medical research and have a huge impact on our future.

After checking out some visualisations in scientific research in a more modern era, I've realised something I've never thought about. Visualisations play a part in medical treatment, making research easier and potentially helping millions.

" A new technique for dissolving fatty molecules in biological tissue can be used to render organs transparent (below). Known, appropriately, as CLARITY, the technique's power becomes evident when combined with fluorescent tags that affix to particular cell types. The result: translucent, color-coded brains, such as the mouse brain above, that could give researchers a literal window into neurological function and anatomy. " (Wired, 2013)

Its astonishing how they can add colour to bring about a visualisation of different cell types. I've realised visualisations can function as an educational tool, help with medical treatment, potentially change public opinion, and affect us in ways we've never even thought about. Visualisations in scientific research could help cure diseases, visualisations in the communication of science can help raise awareness about issues such as global warming, and educate those who are unaware. It truly is awe-inspiring to think about how visualisations have affected us in the past, and how they will affect us in the future. 


REFRENCES

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140219-images-that-changed-our-world
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/best-scientific-figures-2013/#slideid-567426
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/tag/climate/

Visualisation

Dominance of Google


The information graphic in the link above shows how a visualisation can help us to see things that would be hard to organise or view otherwise, e.g. if it was just numbers on a sheet. In my opinion it is far more engaging to look at an information graphic that's visually easy to understand, rather than a page of numbers or statistics.

In a sense, they allow us to see things in a way which we would normally not be bothered to look at or consider. Does this change publics or rather, the way they act/think/behave or feel towards a situation? I have no doubt people have thought about how dominant Google is in the digital market, but have they actually seen the statistics, or bothered to do a comparison of them and their competitors? That's where visualizing data gives it so much more impact. If we look at this simple information graphic we can see how Google is starting to dominate the market, backed by facts and statistics but in a simple and easy visualisation rather than bits of pieces of statistics on the web. I would say it is making the invisible visible!



Also, if we take a look at the following example:

We've heard so much about the Taliban from the media for years, but if we look at the information graphic from http://terror.periscopic.com/ we can see that ISIS has been around since 2002, and we've only recently heard about them. In 2004, yes 10 years ago, ISIS killed 912 people compared to 436 by Taliban. What if this information graphic had been widely published? The public may have known about ISIS long before the media storm, could it be argued that visualisations can change the opinion of the public?

Another example would be http://dirtyenergymoney.com/.

I found it really interesting because its actually an interactive tool that tracks the flow of oil, gas and coal industry contributions to the US congress. It's taking data that would be so difficult to compile and putting it into a simple visualisation that's easy to understand and comprehend, yet complex enough to be able to see which politician received how much contributions, and from who... This certainly would be able to change public opinion on the matter, and far more effective than jumbled up numbers and statistics or just words on a page.

Another question to ask is can the role of the visual, sound and code and their combination transform publishing/publics? How do changes in the way what we see is organised change us?

My answer would be yes, it can transform publishing and publics. I can think of the perfect example. a 'vine', which is a short video, usually a funny one. Personally, this way of publishing (short videos) has subtly affected me in a way. I usually shy away from longer videos now, and except something funny to be a really short clip  and for it to happen instantly. If I were to watch a longer video, I'd definitely skip the boring parts and try to get to the good part. Even when I watch football highlights I just want to see when the magic happens and sometimes not the build-up play.

What about tweets? I'm so used to reading short snippets of information that sometimes I expect things to be condensed in a few sentences so I can catch the gist of it before deciding if I should spend my time further reading the article. The way Twitter works also allows me to access publications that I'm interested in, rather than say read an entire newspaper. For me, the publishing style of Twitter changes the organisation of how I view news, and it's changed me because I just want to read what I'm interested in, and I want small snippets of information as a preview.

What about Instagram as a publishing tool? This video is a really interesting way to look at how the publishing of pictures of Instagram has affected us socially, as a society as well as individually and perhaps has even changed the way we live our lives.

"The Instagram generation now experiences the present as an anticipated memory" - Professor Daniel Kahneman.

The Power of Facebook (week 7)

Do Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon have too much power? To put it simply, I’ve heard two sides to the argument upon discussion with colleagues and friends as well as after reading several articles.

1) Yes. It’s scary.

2) If you don’t want to use their products, just don’t! They do not have control over what you use or do not use.

We can start with point 1. Facebook has become ingrained in our everyday lives, for some, the first thing they do (me included) is check their notifications... messages… etc. when they arise from their (social network) slumber, or in other words when they wake up. I would argue that an example of their power was when they introduced the messenger app and pretty much forced people to download it in other to use Facebook messenger to chat with their friends and the app came with some controversy.

“… the real controversy emerged when new downloaders discovered that the app, especially on Android, was asking for a whole raft of permissions. These included the ability to read your SMS messages, read your phone call log and access the photo roll on your device.” (Lifehacker, 2014)

Yes, this sounds scary. Access to numbers and reading all my stuff? Wow.

But on the flip side of the argument,

“…the permissions Facebook is asking for are needed for the app to be able to work in the way its users want.

‘If you’re going to add voice-calls at some point, you’ll need to access and sync your contacts.

‘If you want to take photos, the app will need access to your gallery. These are needed, however Facebook probably could have communicated this better.’ " (Daily Mail, 2014)

So perhaps Facebook is just trying to provide better service? Or do they want access to our information - we all know how much money they make from advertising... which leaves me on the fence. Anyway, I still have the old version of Facebook that has the messenger app, and I'm holding on to it as long as possible. I guess it seems like I'm leaning towards one side of the fence.

What about all the debates on Facebook's algorithm? The following explains what it does...

"So they’ve tailored their “EdgeRank” algorithm to consider, for each status update from each friend you might receive, not only when it was posted (more recent is better) but other factors, including how regularly you interact with that user (e.g. liking or commenting on their posts), how popular they are on the service and among your mutual friends, and so forth. A post with a high rating will show up, a post with a lower rating will not." (Culture Digitally, 2014).

For me, this isn't a huge problem. I wouldn't want to read boring stuff anyway. BUT this section of the article has got me thinking... The article argues that on one hand, we have

“trusted interpersonal information conduits” — the telephone companies, the post office. Users gave them information aimed for others and the service was entrusted to deliver that information. We expected them not to curate or even monitor that content.  On the other hand, we had “media content producers” — radio, film, magazines, newspapers, television, video games... We knew that producers made careful selections based on appealing to us as audiences, and deliberately played on our emotions as part of their design.

Thus...

.... we would be surprised, outraged, to find out that the post office delivered only some of the letters addressed to us, in order to give us the most emotionally engaging mail experience."

This is kind of what Facebook is doing! Although I would argue that if you send someone a message on Facebook, he/she WILL see it. So the user should know that they won't see everything their friends post, but will receive personal messages, just like mails from the post office (except Facebook probably has access to it)....

Going back to point 2... you could stop using their products and not give them 'power', but can you really live without Facebook/Google/Twitter/Apple? It's just so much more convenient. Keeping in touch on facebook, using the search engine/ google maps, getting snippets of information I'm interested in on Twitter, the convenience of my Iphone...  I know it would be hard for me to give it all up, so do I really have a choice not to use them?

REFERENCES

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/08/how-messenger-highlighted-facebooks-privacy-problem/

http://culturedigitally.org/2014/07/facebooks-algorithm-why-our-assumptions-are-wrong-and-our-concerns-are-right/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2724728/The-Facebook-Messenger-backlash-Reviewers-flock-complain-experts-raise-concerns-privacy-controls.html

Archive Fever

Interestingly enough, I recently watched a movie (which for your sake I will not name, in case you haven't watched it) where the main plot had something to do with an archive. Basically, an evil group infiltrated the 'good guys' and planned to use airships that they built to keep the world safe, linked to satellites, to kill off all 'threats' and these 'threats' were identified using an algorithm that looked into their past (test scores, calls, social media, messages, etc.) to predict their future. The plan was to use this 'archive' of information to kill those who were deemed a threat. Scary... seeing as how that actually seems plausible, apart from the airships maybe... For now...Anyway....

Jacques Derrida (1997) suggests that all media construct archives, and also destroy other archives, differently. I agree with this statement to a certain extent, for example, the arrival of new technology tends to displace the old 'archive'. If we take a look at music for instance, in the past it would be archived in cassette tapes, which are now obsolete as they were replaced by CDs. I believe even CDs will be obsolete eventually, I can't remember the last time I bought one. But that is only considering the physical aspect, because the music and its format still remains the same - an album of songs. In that sense, it doesn't really displace or destroy the old archive, it only does in a physical sense. 

However, if we look at it from another angle, perhaps in terms of format (an album), it can be argued that the style of archiving music is changing. People listen to playlists on spotify and don't necessarily buy the whole album anymore, or they just pay to download a single song from an album. In this sense, then Derrida (1997) makes complete sense when he suggests that all media construct archives, and destroy others. I suppose this can be considered a change in the 'archiving' of music - recreating an archive to suit an individuals needs... 

Is this kind of 'archiving' is the result of the individualistic world we are living in, or maybe even the cause?

ANT

I found the theory hard to understand at first but after watching this video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2YYxS6D-mI it became more apparent. I think the comparison between technological determinist approaches (all outcomes of technological change can be attributed to the technological rather than the social), social determinism (technological changes can only be explained by social categories) and actor network theory when it comes to studying networks, helped me to understand it a lot better.


Basically the theory treats both human and non-human agents, called actors, as equal and neither social nor technological positions are privileged.


A good example of this is this paragraph from David Bank’s article:

“After several hours, the IT working group resolves that 4G hotspots will not cooperate with their encampment. The 4G signal refuses to visit the park with the same regularity as the activists. Without the 4G signal, those in the park are unable to reach their fellow activists, computers, protest signs, and supplies located throughout the Hudson Valley region. The IT working group decides instead, to project a wireless signal from a nearby apartment into the park. They devise an assemblage of signal repeaters and routers that will provide a more reliable stream of data that will show up on time to general assemblies, and in sufficient numbers. The working group believes that the attendance of broadband Internet will allow the geographically and temporally dispersed occupiers to be enrolled within the larger actor-network of Occupy Albany. This increased attendance by activists, broadband connections, and networking hardware, according to the facilitation working group, will lend more authority to the decisions that come out of the GA and keep the occupation going through the winter.”


He uses the same language to describe both human and nonhuman actants, where the event is not just attended by humans but 4G signals. He then says that “the relationships between all of these things, the actor-network, is what’s under investigation”. I feel that this explains ANT very well.


According to Latour, there are both human and non-human “actants” as part of the network, all the elements are brought into relations and all have somewhat equal agency. Therefore we can use this theory to think about publishing, and its relation to broader society, as a series of interwoven “assemblages” – an assembling of elements or relations. I’m looking forward seeing the difference in assemblages from different moments in history, and seeing how the elements or actants change, and how the relations involved change in the upcoming tutorial…

Times are changing...

Times are changing…

At The New York Times Company papers - the Times, International Herald Tribune, and Boston Globe — print and digital ad dollars dipped 6.6 percent to $220 million, while circulation revenue was up 8.3 percent to $233 million in 2012 (NYmag.com 2012). This change is truly interesting, as it is an industry that has always relied on advertising to make money. I wanted to find out how this panned out, since this article was back in 2012, so I did some research…

It seems as if this trend is still continuing, The New York Times Company reported in 2014 that circulation revenues increased 1.4 percent and other revenues increased 7.7 percent, while advertising revenues declined 4.1 percent. The question would be what would change as a result of less advertising. After reading a little more on the topic, the answer is that the public would probably have to pay more for the paper as newspaper focus on circulation revenue. Is this actually bad? Or would the quality of journalism improve? Is circulation revenue just a direct replacement for advertising revenue and have no impact on the quality of journalism? Will this eventually result in an uneven access to news, perhaps based on money? – I guess this is happening with the rise of paywalls.

Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian editor-in-chief, seems to think so too. "If you erect a universal pay wall around your content then it follows you are turning away from a world of openly shared content.” Yet with the decline of advertising dollars, the industry has to reshape its business model, or it will collapse. I feel that paywalls aren't such a bad thing if it provides access to top notch news, it may even improve the quality of journalism – (since subscribers have to get the “better” articles than non-subscribers), but then again news should be available to everyone. It is indeed a tricky question without obvious solutions. However, as long as there is reasonable access to newspapers I would rather pay to keep the industry alive and maintain the quality of journalism as the fourth estate. Unfortunately, money is a necessity as we live in a time where profit is king. 

Past, Present and Future.

I remember watching a documentary many years ago about the printing press, and after going through this weeks material I managed to find the answer to a few lingering questions that had escaped me until now (mostly because I completely forgot about it). 

"The arrival of the mechanical movable type printing introduced the era of mass communication, which altered the structure of society". (Printing Press, Wikipedia!) Finally, someone who agrees that Wikipedia is a reliable source. How can crowd sourced information be unreliable? Don't we ask the locals what to do and where to visit when we travel? Who would bother to update a Wikipedia page if they were not well versed in the subject, ignoring the pranksters of course. Back to the subject. What was perplexing was the fact that, in my mind, the mass production of texts (which I assumed were possessed by political and religious authorities) should have further influenced the population - propaganda comes to mind. Instead, it "altered the structure of society". What I failed to realize was that the wider distribution of reading materials resulted in a higher literacy rate, and this broke the monopoly of the elite. 

Another burning question was how this lead to revolutionary ideas, since people would be reading old texts because they themselves may still have been learning to read. A paragraph from Eisenstein (1979) sums this up. "During the first few centuries of printing, old texts were duplicated more rapidly than new ones. On this basis we were told that 'printing did not speed of the adoption of new theories'". She then answers the burning question that I had by suggesting that an increase in the output of old texts contributed to formulation of new theories. Now it makes sense, I would be more likely to think of something new if I had the material to learn a subject, e.g. a textbook, rather than not have anything at all. Without it I might not even come close or have a tiny inkling of a new idea.

Fast forward to the future, although still in the past, and we have the laser printer. This statement gave me one of those “ahhh” moments, as I've never thought about it in this way before, the laser printer created “the endeavor we call desktop publishing”. It “put the power of easy page makeup and rapid replication into the hands of anyone with a few thousand dollars for hardware and software”. Moving on to the present it no longer costs a few thousand dollars. I guess the concepts of ‘easy page makeup’ and putting it into ‘the hands of anyone’ have given rise to the forms of publishing we know today, blogs, vlogs, personal websites…. which are, I’m glad to say this or else I would be paying to post this blog entry, mostly free (assuming one needs a computer to survive hence already has one). 

Into the future again and having heard about 3D printers and just recently finding out about 4D printers (printception?), I’m excited to see what it holds for the act of publishing…