The answers my friends- are blowin’in the wind….

In the abstract of his article, Matheson presents the idea that web blogs are forcing journalism to adapt to new contexts.  He goes on to say throughout the article that web blogs are moving us away from the more traditional authority of the news- an argument that I agree with, but with the caveat that blogs do so at our own peril and leave us susceptible to the quelling and sharing of the divergent views and ideas that this country was founded on.  The ability of blogs to hyperlink to a myriad of different sources – a feature that Matheson credits as being one of the movers away from the “old journalism” can also be a form of reverse censorship that contains a person within a fixed set of ideas and opinions. 

As the elite sources of news erode and more and more people turn to weblogs for their information our society has a “growing power to “filter” what they see,” (Sunstein, 58).  Sunstein argues in his article that “as a result of the Internet and other technological developments, many people are increasingly engaged in the process of personalization, limiting their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing. They filter in, and out, with unprecedented powers of precision,” (Sunstein, 58).  One could dismiss Sunstein by saying that all news is filtered- a point that Matheson concedes in his article as well when he says that although the Guardian was an online blog outside of the constraints of the printed news- its editors were still in effect “gatekeepers” who controlled what news was hyperlinked on the site.   

Despite this, there is great value in Sunstein’s point, especially as younger generations turn away from newspapers completely in favor of online news sources- including blogs.  Online blogs present a unique and new danger because they “can reduce the importance of the “public sphere” and of common spaces in general.  One of the important features of these spaces is that they tend to ensure that people will encounter materials on important issues, whether or not they have specifically chosen the encounter,” (Sunstein, 58).  Watching a news broadcast in one’s family room enables discussion of what is being broadcast- similarly reading a printed newspaper at least provides an editorial page where many different views can be expressed- on the contrary online blogs enable people to immerse themselves into like minded content to the point where they may lose perspective on the other side of the argument- or become so entrenched and bolstered by the numerous others who share that opinion that they cease to see different opinions as even viable.    

Sunstein’s point that chance encounters with content not on an individual’s prescribed list of topics is “central to democracy and even to freedom itself,” (Sunstein, 58) might be overstating it a bit, but I do agree that as more and more society moves online there needs to be a through examination of where and how people get their “news.”  I put the word news in quotes because really the advent of the blog calls into question the very word.   

In a world where everyone can have a blog almost instantly and begin reporting on the “news” who are the journalists and what is still “real”?  This point is addressed in Matheson’s article with the idea of writing for a public verses writing to a public.  Writing for a public implies some sort of accountability and standards- while writing to a public via a blog is no different than a Puritan sermon from the 17^th century- I can say whatever message I want as the content is based solely on my opinion and what I am trying to persuade my audience of.  This is a danger compounded by the fact that blogs link to other blogs as their source of credibility rather then to established newspapers as was the case with the Guardian – a practice which only serves to reinforce the opinion I am expressing on my blog.           

If people begin to turn away from printed news and the public sphere into a continued practice of receiving only the news they want to read Sunstein cautions that, “the implication is that groups of people, especially if they are like-minded, will end up thinking the same thing they thought before—but in more extreme form, and sometimes in a much more extreme form,” (Sunstein, 58).  Propaganda is a perfect example of this in that it plays on prejudices and beliefs that are already held by an individual only it amplifies them and repeats them until the individual is willing to express outwardly feelings that they only believed inwardly before- and even more alarming – act on them.            

The discrediting and demise of what Matheson calls “the symbolic power of news language within journalism” and “the institutional claim to authority which surrounds news practice” (Matheson, 446) enables people with individual agendas to perpetuate their ideas so that they begin to fill this void of truth and through the self contained world of hyperlinked blogs- enable people to live completely immersed in like minded ideas- thereby eliminating the free flow of thought and innovative thinking that spurs the on-going dialogue of America. 

As a foot note to this- I found it interesting that Matheson sites Sunstein on page 459, but doesn’t in my mind adequately address his argument- instead he says that “Part of the web blog’s appeal to critics and users appears to be that it has the potential to disrupt such cognitive structures” meaning that the many links etc. will prevent people who receive the “daily me” updates from staying only concerned with their world view- but I would argue that if the web blog is only linking to other sites that also reflect its own content then this is still happening.  While the article uses the Guardian web blog as its case study which does in fact link to sites that provide different content and ideas- there are many other sites, especially since Matheson’s article was written that do exactly what Sunstein was describing.

While reading Fulk’s article I could hear the distinctively annoying sound of a dial up modem in my head – a subliminal audio reminder as to how dated this article has become in our rapidly evolving wireless world.  Fulk argues that “two key dimensions underlie public goods in interactive communication systems: connectivity and communality.”  The advent of i-mode and blackberries has rendered one of the two components of her argument i.e. connectivity, into a complete non-issue.  Communality however, is still an aspect of interactive communications that is under a lot of scrutiny- as evidenced by both the Wellman and Rheingold readings and their studies of the new behaviors resulting from our ever connected society.  The most interesting question in this ongoing debate was raised by Rheingold when he asked, “has the definition of presence become uncoupled from physical places and reassigned to a social network that extends beyond a single location?”  By citing further examples from the readings and my own observations I will argue that yes, the virtual world has engineered an entirely new community where it is possible to “exist” outside of your actual physical space, removed from the control and social constraints of society- even the person sitting right next to you. 

            This thesis turns ideas about presence on their head and forces one to ask what does it really mean to be somewhere?  The advent of new wireless technologies has enabled people to physically be in a room, but actually be engaged with audiences and conversations far removed from the time and place in which they are actually sitting.  One annoying example of this is the compulsive blackberrying that happens during meetings when executives are present at the meeting, but more engaged with firing off emails then with the person right in front of them.  I always thought it rude, but also interesting that an electronic email could demand immediate attention over a person talking to you from across a conference table.  In this new virtual world physical presence does not guarantee that the person sitting next to you is actually occupying the same environment as you.

            Wellman touches on this as well in his article when he says “internet accounts and mobile phone numbers are person-based and not place-based.”  The idea of connecting to the internet at you home or your office is now just one of the many ways you can access the internet and email and thus enable you to ignore your co-workers during a team meeting while you text message someone.  Wellman made the point best later in the article when he said, “mobile phones, net-connected PDAs, wireless computers, and personalized software foster liberation from place.”  

            This linking of people no matter the time zone or their location has bred a culture of 24/7 accessibility that in my opinion is never good for one’s work/life balance and I suspect if you polled a number of Japanese parents they would agree with you too, but for wholly different reasons.  Rheingold’s article sites a source who believes that “mobile phones triggered an intergenerational power shift in
Japan because they freed youth from ‘the tyranny of the landline shared by inquisitive family members, creating a space for private communication.”  Having an executive ignore you while in a meeting is one thing, but in the highly hierarchal Japanese family structure the new freedom of the “teenage thumb warriors” must have been a tough pill to swallow for many Japanese parents. 

            Individual access to the virtual world not only has broken down many traditional means of parental control, and enabled teens to “construct a localized and portable place of intimacy available from anywhere they are,” ” (Rheingold).  Japanese parents aren’t alone in their concern over this new uncontrollable world, parents around the world are grappling with how this new community fits into the more tangible physical world they are accustomed to.  Rheingold sites another example of Afghans in Pakistan who were “horrified by the ease with which young Moslem boys and girls, who would never have been allowed to be alone together, can now participate in virtual social relationships via mobile phone,” (Rheingold).

            The Botfighters in
Finland provide yet another example of this new virtual yet still quasi physical world that many inhabit on a daily basis.  Ordinary acts that are very much part of the physical tangible world such as driving one’s car, or waiting in line at the store are becoming part of this new hybrid space and further evaporating the distinction between one’s time spent in the world outside of the internet and their life within a connected virtual network.  Or is it as archaic as Fulk to even suggest that such a line even exists anymore…?

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