Picture this: it is 2015 and there is only darkness. the sun cannot shine through the thickness of the cloud of dust disturbed by 1000 1000 pound bomds that cascaded down upon the earth. The ground is scored black by the nuclear bombing raids. The dust cloud cover has destroyed any and all attempts at satellite communication and therefore we have no phone, e-mail or internet service. Adolescents sit in fetal position rocking back and forth aimlessly hitting keys on their cell phones, in hopes that there is small chance of reaching someone they want to communicate with. Welcome back to the stone age of communication and media.
The newspapers have been out of business for three years, with no hope of returning. With out use of telecommunication, the savior to news media that was projected way back in 2009 as being the last hope for those in search of the worlds current wonders. "What are they doing in Russia?" one might ask. Another might chirp in a response that goes like this: "who cares I can't get to my Facebook page" or "Google it! Oh yeah, that's right, there is no INTERNET!!!" There is a lonely child in the corner, that just learned to speak, and his first three word sentence is: "What is google?"
Education has been forced to return to basics, with a focus on books, paper and handwritten words spread across the page. Students are being forced to know grammar and spell check their own work. Calculators that used to run on solar power have been rendered useless, without the sun powering them. Computers collect dust in the corners as children recall the glory days when school used to be "Fun."
News is spread via mouth. The things that used to be considered gossip is now the contemporary version of TMZ and neighborhood news is followed by everyone. The world now regains verbal communication that spawns discourse and intellectual pursuits. Relationships become stronger and in the darkest days the world has ever seen, a bright light shines within all whom learn the value of speaking to others and learning from others. Gone is the silo effect, gone is trite arguments over why there should be a "dislike button". The future is not written and those that can survive these dark times are going to be stronger for it. They can teach others how to gain personal strength in world without digital media.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Sony's Crazy Interactive TV Patent Lets You Throw Tomatoes at Actors
Come on already!!! Do we really need stuff like this to spend our hard earned money on? This is a ridiculous idea!!!
'nuff said!!!
'nuff said!!!
I love this!!!
I know that when it comes to many of these "new", well new to me, technological break throughs in the way information is spread I have been a little, okay a lot, skeptical. However, being a movie lover, I love the idea of Flixup. It seems to do the exact thing that I do myself by surfing the net, on websites that I frequently find my way to when looking for an opinion that seems similar to mine. I know this continues the patttern of the Silo Effect, but why not surround yourself with like minded people as you hunt and pillage to find treasure in the vast and undulating sea of information.
What does Flixup do that rotten tomatoes or flixster does not? There answer is a complex one:
...the key is the filtration. Plenty of people say things about movies on Twitter that are worthless, but FlixUp has what it believes to be the perfect algorithm to sort out the useful movie tweets from the not useful ones. They call it the "Twitter Noise Assassin." And the results seem solid for how the collective views the film.
When the need to know is all you need to know this is a great resource.
What does Flixup do that rotten tomatoes or flixster does not? There answer is a complex one:
...the key is the filtration. Plenty of people say things about movies on Twitter that are worthless, but FlixUp has what it believes to be the perfect algorithm to sort out the useful movie tweets from the not useful ones. They call it the "Twitter Noise Assassin." And the results seem solid for how the collective views the film.
When the need to know is all you need to know this is a great resource.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Twihaiku
Thought this was an interesting use of the 140 characters.
TwiHaiku - Twitter Poetry, is a free Twitter application that lets you share your thoughts, feelings, views or ideas about anything in a poetic manner.
Your short verses are reviewed, discussed and rated by broad audience, and moderated selection is uploaded to twiHaiku Twitter page so anyone may subscribe and follow the best collection of free short verse poetry online.
Here are some examples:
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
I know where the sky is dark, Somewhere it is blue... I know where the rainbow ends, I am with you
I am following this... whatever it is. I find many of the haiku authors pretty good, however some are pretty aweful also. I will have to wait and see to be able to make more of a determination.
Status update upon Twitter: Things are beginning to look up.
TwiHaiku - Twitter Poetry, is a free Twitter application that lets you share your thoughts, feelings, views or ideas about anything in a poetic manner.
Your short verses are reviewed, discussed and rated by broad audience, and moderated selection is uploaded to twiHaiku Twitter page so anyone may subscribe and follow the best collection of free short verse poetry online.
Here are some examples:
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
taken for granted/ what you had and what you loved/ is gone in the wind.
I know where the sky is dark, Somewhere it is blue... I know where the rainbow ends, I am with you
I am following this... whatever it is. I find many of the haiku authors pretty good, however some are pretty aweful also. I will have to wait and see to be able to make more of a determination.
Status update upon Twitter: Things are beginning to look up.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Illumination in 140 characters
Been playing around with Twitter. Then played around on Facebook to do some croudsourcing about the platform designed to...
My post went like this:
Anyone use Twitter? Please enlighten me as to how and why? I am doing a project for my class on social networking, so I figured I would use one to collect my data!
This is what I got in response:
Derek Cook: people use twitter becasue they have a constant need to feel wanted so if people are stalking them they feel better about themselves
David Montgomery How cleaver and immensly sardonic!
Bryan Pasqualucci: use Omeagle, it can be an example of terrible social networking
John Denton: I use Twitter to stay updated with directors, and what they're working on, they also give tips on filmmaking which I like, but you can pretty much get any kind of news through Twitter, it's micro blogging.
David Montgomery: John, like whom?
John Denton: I follow: Eli Roth, Kevin Smith, David Lynch, Edgar Wright, Richard Kelly, Simon Pegg, Joblo.com, NPH, etc.
Thought this was something interesting to reveal however it did not give me the closing that I was looking for. I still have my reservations about Twitter. What better way to put your mind at ease than to Google what you should be thinking.
I came across an interesting article: What's It All About, Twitter?
the web address is: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2320445,00.asp
This article made the following claims:
If you haven't visited Twitter, you should. Reading the public front page (you can access this "Everyone" page only after you've set up your own account) is like standing in the middle of New York City's Grand Central Terminal and having every single person pause to tell you, in 140 characters or less, exactly what they're doing or thinking at that moment.
IF THAT DOES NOT SELL YOU THIS MIGHT:
So, is the meaning of Twitter more and more followers? Jesus accrued millions of followers. Certainly, his intention was not just to be "followed." That can't be the goal here, either. But as I Twitter incessantly and wait for that flash of light—the "aha!" moment—I grow increasingly frustrated and disappointed. Despite my efforts (I even put my Twitter address in my twice-weekly What's New Now newsletter), nothing is happening!
Still not satisfied, what about now?
John C. Dvorak and I talked about the value of Twitter last week, and I told him that as far as I could tell, there is none. "Au contraire, my friend," said John. He once asked his legion of Twitterers to tell him where and when presidential nominee Barack Obama made a particular statement. Within minutes, he had his answer—many times over. I have to admit that when I post a question in Twitter, someone usually answers, though the answer isn't always useful. Clearly, if I had 100 times more followers, I could, potentially, mobilize a legion of fellow Twitterers to answer my questions and maybe even do my bidding.
Getting there? Beginning to? Me neither!
My post went like this:
Anyone use Twitter? Please enlighten me as to how and why? I am doing a project for my class on social networking, so I figured I would use one to collect my data!
This is what I got in response:
Derek Cook: people use twitter becasue they have a constant need to feel wanted so if people are stalking them they feel better about themselves
David Montgomery How cleaver and immensly sardonic!
Bryan Pasqualucci: use Omeagle, it can be an example of terrible social networking
John Denton: I use Twitter to stay updated with directors, and what they're working on, they also give tips on filmmaking which I like, but you can pretty much get any kind of news through Twitter, it's micro blogging.
David Montgomery: John, like whom?
John Denton: I follow: Eli Roth, Kevin Smith, David Lynch, Edgar Wright, Richard Kelly, Simon Pegg, Joblo.com, NPH, etc.
Thought this was something interesting to reveal however it did not give me the closing that I was looking for. I still have my reservations about Twitter. What better way to put your mind at ease than to Google what you should be thinking.
I came across an interesting article: What's It All About, Twitter?
the web address is: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2320445,00.asp
This article made the following claims:
If you haven't visited Twitter, you should. Reading the public front page (you can access this "Everyone" page only after you've set up your own account) is like standing in the middle of New York City's Grand Central Terminal and having every single person pause to tell you, in 140 characters or less, exactly what they're doing or thinking at that moment.
IF THAT DOES NOT SELL YOU THIS MIGHT:
So, is the meaning of Twitter more and more followers? Jesus accrued millions of followers. Certainly, his intention was not just to be "followed." That can't be the goal here, either. But as I Twitter incessantly and wait for that flash of light—the "aha!" moment—I grow increasingly frustrated and disappointed. Despite my efforts (I even put my Twitter address in my twice-weekly What's New Now newsletter), nothing is happening!
Still not satisfied, what about now?
John C. Dvorak and I talked about the value of Twitter last week, and I told him that as far as I could tell, there is none. "Au contraire, my friend," said John. He once asked his legion of Twitterers to tell him where and when presidential nominee Barack Obama made a particular statement. Within minutes, he had his answer—many times over. I have to admit that when I post a question in Twitter, someone usually answers, though the answer isn't always useful. Clearly, if I had 100 times more followers, I could, potentially, mobilize a legion of fellow Twitterers to answer my questions and maybe even do my bidding.
Getting there? Beginning to? Me neither!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Stalker Stuff
So this Twitter stuff is either kinda of cool or really creepy. I have been playing with it, Twitter I mean, for about hours no. I began following things I am interested in like movie studios, comic book companies, news etc. and I found myself still not that entertained. That is when I realized I could 'cyberstalk' celebrities.'
I typed in a name that I thought would give me some witty quips a couple times a day, and that man was Kevin Smith. As of now, I no longer find him humorous. I now just feel he is trying to hard. It seems a bit sad. However, I did get a chance to see who he is following. Now that as the mother load of the whats up about Twitter.
I found out, via Kevin Smith's tweets that he follows a comic icon. Smith follows a Stan "the man" Lee. What!!! Too cool you say. Just wait until you see what Mr. Lee has to say:
"--But don't get too complacent! Tomorrow's another day and you know how compulsive I am! Sleep tight, heroes!"
this just in... still not that impressed with Twitter. BTW I am leaning towards the creepy thoughts on all this.
I typed in a name that I thought would give me some witty quips a couple times a day, and that man was Kevin Smith. As of now, I no longer find him humorous. I now just feel he is trying to hard. It seems a bit sad. However, I did get a chance to see who he is following. Now that as the mother load of the whats up about Twitter.
I found out, via Kevin Smith's tweets that he follows a comic icon. Smith follows a Stan "the man" Lee. What!!! Too cool you say. Just wait until you see what Mr. Lee has to say:
"--But don't get too complacent! Tomorrow's another day and you know how compulsive I am! Sleep tight, heroes!"
this just in... still not that impressed with Twitter. BTW I am leaning towards the creepy thoughts on all this.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Arod-- Avoided
I was trying out my new Twitter account and found this 'tweet' from the Onion and laughed aloud.
Mickey Mouse Noticeably Avoids A-Rod During Trip To Disney World
November 17, 2009 | Issue 45•46 | Onion Sports
ORLANDO, FL—Members of the Yankees couldn't help but notice that the resort's iconic mascot Mickey Mouse made a special effort to avoid Alex Rodriguez during the team's trip to Walt Disney World to celebrate its World Series victory. "I thought it was weird that whenever Alex would yell, 'Mickey, over here,' Mickey would just walk in the opposite direction," said teammate Johnny Damon, adding that he would never have noticed Mickey's many attempts to avoid the third baseman had Rodriguez not been following the cartoon character around with a little autograph book. "But then we had breakfast with the characters, and Mickey went around and hugged Derek [Jeter] and Mark [Teixeira], even our bullpen catcher. Then he just kind of peeled off when he got to A-Rod." Rodriguez was later seen having an intense, one-sided conversation with Rescue Rangers Chip and Dale about being a famous athlete living in New York City.
Not really what i am supposed to do on Twitter, but i feel a bit like a kid on Christmas experimenting with a new toy.
When I first got on, I began looking for people that are in my addressbook and read a bunch of crap about going to the mall, grocery shopping etc. so I decided to go outside the Usual Suspects and look for anything that could generate an eyebrow raise or chuckle.
Mickey Mouse Noticeably Avoids A-Rod During Trip To Disney World
November 17, 2009 | Issue 45•46 | Onion Sports
ORLANDO, FL—Members of the Yankees couldn't help but notice that the resort's iconic mascot Mickey Mouse made a special effort to avoid Alex Rodriguez during the team's trip to Walt Disney World to celebrate its World Series victory. "I thought it was weird that whenever Alex would yell, 'Mickey, over here,' Mickey would just walk in the opposite direction," said teammate Johnny Damon, adding that he would never have noticed Mickey's many attempts to avoid the third baseman had Rodriguez not been following the cartoon character around with a little autograph book. "But then we had breakfast with the characters, and Mickey went around and hugged Derek [Jeter] and Mark [Teixeira], even our bullpen catcher. Then he just kind of peeled off when he got to A-Rod." Rodriguez was later seen having an intense, one-sided conversation with Rescue Rangers Chip and Dale about being a famous athlete living in New York City.
Not really what i am supposed to do on Twitter, but i feel a bit like a kid on Christmas experimenting with a new toy.
When I first got on, I began looking for people that are in my addressbook and read a bunch of crap about going to the mall, grocery shopping etc. so I decided to go outside the Usual Suspects and look for anything that could generate an eyebrow raise or chuckle.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Capital Report:a.k.a. SNOOZEFEST 09
As a child of the 20th and 21st centuries, let me tell you a little flair goes a long way. For no flair at all; that speaks volumes. Let's be honest with ourselves right from the get go: Connecticut polotics are boring! Unless, that is, there is a juicy scandal unfolding revolving around women, hot tubes or women and hot tubes. Therefore it becomes the responsibility of the vehicle, in which we learn about our home state's polotics, that needs some help to pull the readers in. "Capital Report" has zero, zilch, notta, ought, zippo for flair. They do not even reach the ballpark in order to be remotely considered to be near the minimum amount of flair.
Aestetics and panache is what is needed in this ADD ridden society that we live in. In order to drive readers to one's sight, one must overstimulae the audience's senses. One needs to have crazy pop ups, sound bites, a computer generated musak score that forces one to decide upon a hyperlink, that will dissolve into some wizard like animation which transports you magically to another page where the words beckon your attention. Now, you are ready to recess deep into the wall of words that appear infront of you as you become increasingly interested in what is going on in your Facebook page.
At least this hypothetical website, which I just imagined in my mind, made an effort to extort the senses as a way to drive up readership. That is much more than what I can say about "Capital Report." I fell out of insomnia just looking at the homepage.
Can everyone join in with me as I say.... BORING!!!!!!
Aestetics and panache is what is needed in this ADD ridden society that we live in. In order to drive readers to one's sight, one must overstimulae the audience's senses. One needs to have crazy pop ups, sound bites, a computer generated musak score that forces one to decide upon a hyperlink, that will dissolve into some wizard like animation which transports you magically to another page where the words beckon your attention. Now, you are ready to recess deep into the wall of words that appear infront of you as you become increasingly interested in what is going on in your Facebook page.
At least this hypothetical website, which I just imagined in my mind, made an effort to extort the senses as a way to drive up readership. That is much more than what I can say about "Capital Report." I fell out of insomnia just looking at the homepage.
Can everyone join in with me as I say.... BORING!!!!!!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Steal it, Its okay!
For small independant start ups trying to make a name for themselves what better way is there to generate publicity than letting other companies, in your field, do your publicrelations and marketing for you. The "Steal Our Stories" section can definately help spread the word of ones journalistic integrity.
"You can republish our articles and graphics for free, so long as you credit us, link to us, and don’t edit our material or sell it separately.
We’re licensed under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details. (The license says “no commercial use.” We’re fine with ads appearing on the same page as republished stories, but you can’t resell the stories or sell ads specifically targeted to them.)"
As long as the credit is given and links back to the original source are made tis seems like a real tool to helpd drive readership toward the site. It seems likeit would be beneficial for both parties that could lead to better relationships going forward that could help in the long run when it comes to larger or more diverse stories.
"You can republish our articles and graphics for free, so long as you credit us, link to us, and don’t edit our material or sell it separately.
We’re licensed under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details. (The license says “no commercial use.” We’re fine with ads appearing on the same page as republished stories, but you can’t resell the stories or sell ads specifically targeted to them.)"
As long as the credit is given and links back to the original source are made tis seems like a real tool to helpd drive readership toward the site. It seems likeit would be beneficial for both parties that could lead to better relationships going forward that could help in the long run when it comes to larger or more diverse stories.
Friday, November 13, 2009
What I have learned so far about the business of journalism:
What I have learned so far about the business of journalism:
Newspapers get more money from advertising than from sales of the newspapers.
The news industry has a relatively high profit margin, such as 20 percent, 30 percent or more.
What I learned from:
Online Newspaper Revenue: Puny AND Persuasive (to broadcasters)?
By Gordon Borrell
Aesthetics are important to draw consumers.
The fact is, some sites run by daily newspapers are doing phenomenally well compared with their peers. It is typical to see some newspaper sites making three to four times the average for their peer circulation group. Yet there are others that are trying hard (even a few that have won awards for spectacular site features) but performing poorly on the revenue side.
This inward look at how well the newspaper industry is doing is a step toward an important benchmarking process. It shows newspapers how well they compare against their peers. But as my colleague Clark Gilbert from Harvard Business School says, the best newspapers are just the prettiest of the ugly stepsisters.
Must have money that is consumable and subject matter must not be too serious:
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Online commerce generates a majority of Profits.
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Will we use advertisements?
Advertisements are a must. We need to be able to generate a cost basis as a way to spread ourselves throughout the state to be able to cover as much as we can. I feel that the best case scenario would be using local businesses as a generator of economy as well as using them to help spread our word via weekly pamphlets or placemat depending upon the market and venue.
- local restaurants
- local Laundromats
- local grocery
- local schools targeting school board meetings, PTA, and Gridiron clubs
- local artisans and galleries
- vintage shops
- florists
- private book stores
- doctors office
- lawyers
- etc.
Will there be a print campaign?
Limited run of printed copy that has our web address printed all over it that helps spread our word through a grass root campaign.
Will we link up with other local sites for promotion and repay the favor?
I think we make our presence known via major news events around the state placing our product name in very visual places to help piggyback on visual media, such as TV, Podcasts etc. Try to forge relationships by appearing on local radio shows when ever we can to help generate positive public relations. We can trade drive time for ad space in order to further our relationships.
- local radio (FM)
- local radio (AM)
- local TV
How will we get our name out there, and the methods we use, what will that say about us?
We can have weekly writing contests within high schools where the winners article can be a weekly feature on the front home page of the website. This has two purposes: help start a young audience base that will grow as our site does and get interest in journalism boosted throughout the state by teachers, parents and school administrators that will help drive interest in our site. The contests ideas can be placed on the website with new concepts or topics each week that will bring different students trying out their hand at hyperlocal journalism.
Newspapers get more money from advertising than from sales of the newspapers.
The news industry has a relatively high profit margin, such as 20 percent, 30 percent or more.
What I learned from:
Online Newspaper Revenue: Puny AND Persuasive (to broadcasters)?
By Gordon Borrell
Aesthetics are important to draw consumers.
The fact is, some sites run by daily newspapers are doing phenomenally well compared with their peers. It is typical to see some newspaper sites making three to four times the average for their peer circulation group. Yet there are others that are trying hard (even a few that have won awards for spectacular site features) but performing poorly on the revenue side.
This inward look at how well the newspaper industry is doing is a step toward an important benchmarking process. It shows newspapers how well they compare against their peers. But as my colleague Clark Gilbert from Harvard Business School says, the best newspapers are just the prettiest of the ugly stepsisters.
Must have money that is consumable and subject matter must not be too serious:
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Online commerce generates a majority of Profits.
I have a theory for this. All the competitor sites mentioned are pure-play Internet companies that a) have complete dependence on Internet revenues and b) are not dependent on financing, resources or demands of a parent company focused on a competing medium.
Will we use advertisements?
Advertisements are a must. We need to be able to generate a cost basis as a way to spread ourselves throughout the state to be able to cover as much as we can. I feel that the best case scenario would be using local businesses as a generator of economy as well as using them to help spread our word via weekly pamphlets or placemat depending upon the market and venue.
- local restaurants
- local Laundromats
- local grocery
- local schools targeting school board meetings, PTA, and Gridiron clubs
- local artisans and galleries
- vintage shops
- florists
- private book stores
- doctors office
- lawyers
- etc.
Will there be a print campaign?
Limited run of printed copy that has our web address printed all over it that helps spread our word through a grass root campaign.
Will we link up with other local sites for promotion and repay the favor?
I think we make our presence known via major news events around the state placing our product name in very visual places to help piggyback on visual media, such as TV, Podcasts etc. Try to forge relationships by appearing on local radio shows when ever we can to help generate positive public relations. We can trade drive time for ad space in order to further our relationships.
- local radio (FM)
- local radio (AM)
- local TV
How will we get our name out there, and the methods we use, what will that say about us?
We can have weekly writing contests within high schools where the winners article can be a weekly feature on the front home page of the website. This has two purposes: help start a young audience base that will grow as our site does and get interest in journalism boosted throughout the state by teachers, parents and school administrators that will help drive interest in our site. The contests ideas can be placed on the website with new concepts or topics each week that will bring different students trying out their hand at hyperlocal journalism.
"Electric English" in a digital age
English 811 is entitled Electric English and this title leads a student to understand the complex problems that this title ensues. Digital Literature is a subjective term that has many different connotations. The term contemporary leads one to primarily derive a concept of current topics that apply the real world connections that apply to everybody that is exposed to the digital format. However, the word “Digital” takes on many different functions of it’s as it pertains to literature. The concept of digital is most often associated with the computer, and the idea of images conjoined with text, yet when the medium is switched, perhaps to movie or television, the concept of digital literature is deemed not serious in nature or possibly making tragic attempts at being a serious contender for the current reigning champion of literature: the print culture. If the concept of art, whether it be: theatre, film or literature, is to reach a wide array of multiple audiences with universally appealing themes, than the idea of digital literature certainly has the ability to be considered as a formidable piece of the literary pie. It can take a back seat to the print format of literature, because of its inability to sway the opinions of the academic mind. However, where the world switched from pictorial images upon a cave wall, as the formidable means in which to communicate and convey stories and ideas, to the oral tradition we are witnessing a literary crossroads where we, as scholars are learning more about a new medium that needs to be considered a viable source of literature.
This class took me on a journey from a safe and comfortable understanding of what literature is and revealed to me an uncomfortable realization that my notion is antiquated and stoic. It is through this epic adventure that I was able to realize that what I once believed as being the foundation of education, literacy, is being challenged and revolutionized during my life span. As much as I wage battle against it, it will only grow more potent. It is with this newly gained knowledge of digital literature that I am able to return to my students and teach them using new and improved methods that are visually appealing, interactive and educational at the same time.
My own Definition of Literature: Literature is the conveyance of ideas through visual representations of thoughts promoted by an author and received by a reader that has ensues some sort of change in its audience. The impact changes the reader in some way, it either "delights or instructs" Literature is a marriage of form and content set to create a reaction from its audience. This interaction between reader and author is a discourse. It is an active process where the reader must participate via interpretation, evaluation and personal connection. It is through this merging of author intent and the reader response that meaning and understanding of theme and tone emerges. The visual representations can come across in varying forms: words, pictures or illustrations and can meet the needs and desires of many varying audiences, thus creating universal appeal. To my own understanding of what is the purpose of literature: Literature is the way to convey (instruct) audiences the value of the human endeavor. It teaches one to bask in the awesomeness of the mundane and become enlightened by the vastness of the universe and its many intricacies. What is the function of literature? Through a form of entertainment it is designed to explore emotion and strife through visual and emotional experiences that transcends pages and scenes to reach and impact the reader. At the beginning it seemed so clear to me. However it is in my own definitions that cracks to my fundamental founding principals are formed.
Last year, I was teaching a multicultural literature class that I focused on race and gender as themes to explore in American Literature. While I was teaching the feminist movement in literature I came across the following website: http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/gilman.htm. This website worked very well with my students because it exposed them to a journey with the text. If you check this out please choose some of the hyperlinks and see where they bring you. This form of texts does seem to influence its reader, almost in the way the choose your own adventure stories did. It allows the student/reader to be more interactive with the text. I had great success with this tool in the class room and I also found my students interested enough to read the criticisms at the beginning. I was suppressing my interest and excitement of this technology. I have seen it influence the interests of my students and I knew that it was a good tool, but I also knew the original piece were written for a print culture not a digital one. That is where I found myself conflicted, and I took the safe passage across the murky waters of “digital” literature.
I felt isolated and alone while I was reading the article "The End of Books."
I found myself laughing out loud at all the obnoxious remarks Coover was making. He uses rhetoric in this article to push his obvious passion and notions about Electronic literature. Some of the words that caught me off guard were: "Indeed, the very proliferation of books and other print based media, so prevalent in this forest harvesting, paper wasting age, is held to be a sign of its feverish moribundity, the last futile gasp of a once vital form before finally passes away forever, dead as God." He makes a profound argument that paper is a waste of forest resources, and if we don't join the digital age we too are just adding to the problem, and if we don't join it will still pass us by. It is hard to argue that Coover is attacking our guilt and thus making what he is saying more important and indeed dire. To say that print is as dead as God however seems to be a bit overboard. If he is using it as a metaphor to say God is only alive because of a printed book, he has just lost millions of people from his audience. Never mind the fact the line reads in bad taste anyway.
However he goes on to say; "...true freedom from the tyranny of the line is perceived as only really possible now at last with the advent of the hypertext..." Wait, I do not want to be oppressed any longer, I too want freedom. I too want to be joining this bandwagon that is an affront to written and printed literature. Psyche! I soooooooo do not want to be a part of a culture that seems to become outdated as soon as a new program is invented, published and run on multiple computers. Coover wrote this article in 1992, and in 17 years the technology has far surpassed this conceptualized literature. However, teachers are not teaching this kind of literature in school, or how to produce this type of creativity 17 years later. How can this be a living breathing art if it is not fed or if it is not nourished by new authors or creators? Why are authors that are successful in the print culture not hopping aboard this run away train? Why does this seem like a toy and the people using it tinkerers?
I began to think about the implications to that idea. My son, 6 years old, is computer savvy. He has been able to read and write since he was 3 years old. Since he was 4 years old he has been able to navigate cyberspace and find websites such as Noggin.com, Nickjr.com and other educational sites. He has been able to play several educational games that have taught him to read and write better. He has learned to spell, as a way to find what he wants on youtube, which is mostly NASCAR videos and cartoon heroes and it was at this moment I became a believer in “digital” literature.
I will agree that the computer can be used as a great educational tool, but to say that the print age is dying, I am not sure that I can buy that. I believe the computer can instruct on how to build the tools needed for academia, however the work still needs to be written. Whether it be Math, Science, English or Health the written word, the one that is constant will always be the overpowering element. It appears to be concrete and is the exact same written text the students read ten years ago gives it the appearance of longevity so the students feel that what they are learning is meaningful. When reading this article I was angry, but it was in the reflection of what I was angry about that helped me better understand the value of “digital” literature. My anger sent me off on a tangent that seemed to spin me upside down. I began to feel like Lear, outside yelling at the storm.
The use of literature allows the subjective concept of interpretation to be translated by the audience through the text’s role on paper, stage or screen. The audience member, reader or viewer, will than bring forth their own ideas and connections to those texts being written and played out. Here is where the audience member may be influenced by their own prior knowledge, where the intended meaning is lost and consumed by their own interpretation. It is here where the current state of being, of the viewer, influences their own interpretation of the “digital piece”. This could make a classic piece of art and literature, and bring a contemporary interpretation of the text as it is playing out in front of them. Thus leaving the viewer, reader and audience in a place to discern whether or not the “digital” age has brought digital literature to its contemporary form creating tomorrow’s classic art or does it not become art at all? The power is in the audience’s control.
This class took me on a journey from a safe and comfortable understanding of what literature is and revealed to me an uncomfortable realization that my notion is antiquated and stoic. It is through this epic adventure that I was able to realize that what I once believed as being the foundation of education, literacy, is being challenged and revolutionized during my life span. As much as I wage battle against it, it will only grow more potent. It is with this newly gained knowledge of digital literature that I am able to return to my students and teach them using new and improved methods that are visually appealing, interactive and educational at the same time.
My own Definition of Literature: Literature is the conveyance of ideas through visual representations of thoughts promoted by an author and received by a reader that has ensues some sort of change in its audience. The impact changes the reader in some way, it either "delights or instructs" Literature is a marriage of form and content set to create a reaction from its audience. This interaction between reader and author is a discourse. It is an active process where the reader must participate via interpretation, evaluation and personal connection. It is through this merging of author intent and the reader response that meaning and understanding of theme and tone emerges. The visual representations can come across in varying forms: words, pictures or illustrations and can meet the needs and desires of many varying audiences, thus creating universal appeal. To my own understanding of what is the purpose of literature: Literature is the way to convey (instruct) audiences the value of the human endeavor. It teaches one to bask in the awesomeness of the mundane and become enlightened by the vastness of the universe and its many intricacies. What is the function of literature? Through a form of entertainment it is designed to explore emotion and strife through visual and emotional experiences that transcends pages and scenes to reach and impact the reader. At the beginning it seemed so clear to me. However it is in my own definitions that cracks to my fundamental founding principals are formed.
Last year, I was teaching a multicultural literature class that I focused on race and gender as themes to explore in American Literature. While I was teaching the feminist movement in literature I came across the following website: http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/gilman.htm. This website worked very well with my students because it exposed them to a journey with the text. If you check this out please choose some of the hyperlinks and see where they bring you. This form of texts does seem to influence its reader, almost in the way the choose your own adventure stories did. It allows the student/reader to be more interactive with the text. I had great success with this tool in the class room and I also found my students interested enough to read the criticisms at the beginning. I was suppressing my interest and excitement of this technology. I have seen it influence the interests of my students and I knew that it was a good tool, but I also knew the original piece were written for a print culture not a digital one. That is where I found myself conflicted, and I took the safe passage across the murky waters of “digital” literature.
I felt isolated and alone while I was reading the article "The End of Books."
I found myself laughing out loud at all the obnoxious remarks Coover was making. He uses rhetoric in this article to push his obvious passion and notions about Electronic literature. Some of the words that caught me off guard were: "Indeed, the very proliferation of books and other print based media, so prevalent in this forest harvesting, paper wasting age, is held to be a sign of its feverish moribundity, the last futile gasp of a once vital form before finally passes away forever, dead as God." He makes a profound argument that paper is a waste of forest resources, and if we don't join the digital age we too are just adding to the problem, and if we don't join it will still pass us by. It is hard to argue that Coover is attacking our guilt and thus making what he is saying more important and indeed dire. To say that print is as dead as God however seems to be a bit overboard. If he is using it as a metaphor to say God is only alive because of a printed book, he has just lost millions of people from his audience. Never mind the fact the line reads in bad taste anyway.
However he goes on to say; "...true freedom from the tyranny of the line is perceived as only really possible now at last with the advent of the hypertext..." Wait, I do not want to be oppressed any longer, I too want freedom. I too want to be joining this bandwagon that is an affront to written and printed literature. Psyche! I soooooooo do not want to be a part of a culture that seems to become outdated as soon as a new program is invented, published and run on multiple computers. Coover wrote this article in 1992, and in 17 years the technology has far surpassed this conceptualized literature. However, teachers are not teaching this kind of literature in school, or how to produce this type of creativity 17 years later. How can this be a living breathing art if it is not fed or if it is not nourished by new authors or creators? Why are authors that are successful in the print culture not hopping aboard this run away train? Why does this seem like a toy and the people using it tinkerers?
I began to think about the implications to that idea. My son, 6 years old, is computer savvy. He has been able to read and write since he was 3 years old. Since he was 4 years old he has been able to navigate cyberspace and find websites such as Noggin.com, Nickjr.com and other educational sites. He has been able to play several educational games that have taught him to read and write better. He has learned to spell, as a way to find what he wants on youtube, which is mostly NASCAR videos and cartoon heroes and it was at this moment I became a believer in “digital” literature.
I will agree that the computer can be used as a great educational tool, but to say that the print age is dying, I am not sure that I can buy that. I believe the computer can instruct on how to build the tools needed for academia, however the work still needs to be written. Whether it be Math, Science, English or Health the written word, the one that is constant will always be the overpowering element. It appears to be concrete and is the exact same written text the students read ten years ago gives it the appearance of longevity so the students feel that what they are learning is meaningful. When reading this article I was angry, but it was in the reflection of what I was angry about that helped me better understand the value of “digital” literature. My anger sent me off on a tangent that seemed to spin me upside down. I began to feel like Lear, outside yelling at the storm.
The use of literature allows the subjective concept of interpretation to be translated by the audience through the text’s role on paper, stage or screen. The audience member, reader or viewer, will than bring forth their own ideas and connections to those texts being written and played out. Here is where the audience member may be influenced by their own prior knowledge, where the intended meaning is lost and consumed by their own interpretation. It is here where the current state of being, of the viewer, influences their own interpretation of the “digital piece”. This could make a classic piece of art and literature, and bring a contemporary interpretation of the text as it is playing out in front of them. Thus leaving the viewer, reader and audience in a place to discern whether or not the “digital” age has brought digital literature to its contemporary form creating tomorrow’s classic art or does it not become art at all? The power is in the audience’s control.
Role Assignments and the Computer
Learning needs people to read, interpret and evaluate all information and then challenge its validity. It is in the challenging, of that information, that allows the evolution of thought and knowledge occurs. We grow via the information that we acquire and store, the information that can be recalled at the instance that is needed. When someone allows themselves to be immerged in reading anything, whether it be on or offline, they allow themselves to experience the process in which knowledge is gained. It is the user that appears to get in their way. The user chooses what to click on, what bores them or even what keeps their attention. Choice is a factor, it is the choice of the user to function highly when using the internet or just assign the role of entertainment to the computer. Most users have assigned an entertainment role to the computer so when they sit down they desire an entertaining experience. When people are no longer entertained they move on to something that will entertain them.
When scouring the internet I found this incredibly vague description of what the internet is:
Since the advent of written language, tools have been used to enhance and control human communication. The invention of the printing press made communication via the written word on paper documents practical. The telephone, television and radio have had the same kinds of effects on visual and auditory communication. Modern office tools such as voice mail, pagers, and fax machines have done much to change communication, but the bulk of business communication has still been paper documents. As you may be aware, the advent of the Internet has the potential to change the way we communicate in some fundamental ways. We cannot watch the news without hearing a story about the Internet. In one story we hear evangelical praise of the technology that will change everything for the better, and in the next story we hear about the abundance of smut, filth, crime, and other dangers it forces upon us. We need to understand what the Internet is and what it isn't. It is a very real part of our present and future. It will not go away any time soon. The effects it may have on us are profound. Our level understanding of this phenomenon will be the difference between whether it controls our actions or we use it as a powerful tool to advance our personal ideals.
In 2003, the article Redefining the Role of Computers in Education by Neil Mercurius tries to explain the role of the internet in education. During this definition he also interjects a concern in which it could have upon the student using the internet.
Electronic Learning or e-Learning is reinventing the way people learn. The desk, the chalkboard, the paper and pencil, and the knowledge-giver no longer dominate the classroom. The Internet is the biggest influence. When delivered via the Internet, the vendors' curricula can personalize learning. Any student can use the computer as a medium through which the access of information and resources manifest itself as the supernatural agency.
The Internet is dynamic. Up-to-date information on MSN or Yahoo portals, for example, is as current as the click of the mouse. For the Internet to continue to be effective and efficient in delivering current information into the classroom, schools must incorporate clear goals, objectives, and long-term strategic plans to create the best method of delivering of the information to teachers and students. However, the content requires constant monitoring by educators to be certain that content is appropriate and synchronized with the goals and objectives of the institution.
In addition, the Internet shrinks the globe. Collaboration extends from the classroom to distant places; information is global. The ability to link multiple resources worldwide is an advantage of the Internet. It creates the avenue for an integrated curriculum, thus providing individualized learning modules for all learners.
In 2009, some of these issues are still at play. Many of them are now being amplified by other media formats that are popping up all over the net. Many of these websites contain hyper links that will link to new and similar sites. Advertisements that “pop up” while one is engaged in the reading can distract someone as well.
Young students, when given an assignment in my class reading an article online, gave the following testimonials:
“I found it very difficult to read the article on line because I kept going to Facebook.”
“I was distracted by the advertisements on the side of the page and could not keep focus for more than a couple of minutes at a time.”
“It was boring and I stopped reading.”
Students are used to be entertained by what they do in all facets of life. Whether it be through the ipod,stuck in their eas, the cell phone, with friends at a push of a button, on demand programming and the internet kids are bombarded by the me universe that they live in. When they begin to feel sad, or at all uncomfortable they can go to their Facebook page and be reafirmed that they are okay by a slew of "Friends" validating their mediocrity through responses to their staus updates. To be challenged and tested by the bombardment of the information the internet has to offer only intimidats students and makes them feel like dwarfs in a world of giants. That feeling is one they spend 8 hours a day trying to escape, at the end of the day they no longer want to be made to feel stupid so they continue to protect themselves in a world that exists within their control.
When scouring the internet I found this incredibly vague description of what the internet is:
Since the advent of written language, tools have been used to enhance and control human communication. The invention of the printing press made communication via the written word on paper documents practical. The telephone, television and radio have had the same kinds of effects on visual and auditory communication. Modern office tools such as voice mail, pagers, and fax machines have done much to change communication, but the bulk of business communication has still been paper documents. As you may be aware, the advent of the Internet has the potential to change the way we communicate in some fundamental ways. We cannot watch the news without hearing a story about the Internet. In one story we hear evangelical praise of the technology that will change everything for the better, and in the next story we hear about the abundance of smut, filth, crime, and other dangers it forces upon us. We need to understand what the Internet is and what it isn't. It is a very real part of our present and future. It will not go away any time soon. The effects it may have on us are profound. Our level understanding of this phenomenon will be the difference between whether it controls our actions or we use it as a powerful tool to advance our personal ideals.
In 2003, the article Redefining the Role of Computers in Education by Neil Mercurius tries to explain the role of the internet in education. During this definition he also interjects a concern in which it could have upon the student using the internet.
Electronic Learning or e-Learning is reinventing the way people learn. The desk, the chalkboard, the paper and pencil, and the knowledge-giver no longer dominate the classroom. The Internet is the biggest influence. When delivered via the Internet, the vendors' curricula can personalize learning. Any student can use the computer as a medium through which the access of information and resources manifest itself as the supernatural agency.
The Internet is dynamic. Up-to-date information on MSN or Yahoo portals, for example, is as current as the click of the mouse. For the Internet to continue to be effective and efficient in delivering current information into the classroom, schools must incorporate clear goals, objectives, and long-term strategic plans to create the best method of delivering of the information to teachers and students. However, the content requires constant monitoring by educators to be certain that content is appropriate and synchronized with the goals and objectives of the institution.
In addition, the Internet shrinks the globe. Collaboration extends from the classroom to distant places; information is global. The ability to link multiple resources worldwide is an advantage of the Internet. It creates the avenue for an integrated curriculum, thus providing individualized learning modules for all learners.
In 2009, some of these issues are still at play. Many of them are now being amplified by other media formats that are popping up all over the net. Many of these websites contain hyper links that will link to new and similar sites. Advertisements that “pop up” while one is engaged in the reading can distract someone as well.
Young students, when given an assignment in my class reading an article online, gave the following testimonials:
“I found it very difficult to read the article on line because I kept going to Facebook.”
“I was distracted by the advertisements on the side of the page and could not keep focus for more than a couple of minutes at a time.”
“It was boring and I stopped reading.”
Students are used to be entertained by what they do in all facets of life. Whether it be through the ipod,stuck in their eas, the cell phone, with friends at a push of a button, on demand programming and the internet kids are bombarded by the me universe that they live in. When they begin to feel sad, or at all uncomfortable they can go to their Facebook page and be reafirmed that they are okay by a slew of "Friends" validating their mediocrity through responses to their staus updates. To be challenged and tested by the bombardment of the information the internet has to offer only intimidats students and makes them feel like dwarfs in a world of giants. That feeling is one they spend 8 hours a day trying to escape, at the end of the day they no longer want to be made to feel stupid so they continue to protect themselves in a world that exists within their control.
To Google or not to Google?
In the blog titled “Google Makes Us Stupid” Michael Fitzgerald argues the point that Nicholas Carr makes in his article for the Atlantic, entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” In this article by Fitzgerald, he explains how this argument, on the use of tools, has begun to handicap society since the age of Plato. In the days of Plato writing became the tool to write down ideas and concerns. Plato feared this idea because he felt it was a way to chronicle ideas rather than hold on to them and continue to challenge it.
Fitzgerald writes in his blog:
Carr is not a Luddite per se, but he joins a long line of techno-skeptics going all the way back to Socrates, who argued that people should not write things down, because it would impair their memories (Carr knows this, and mentioned Socrates in his essay).
Fitzgerald also writes this in response to Carr’s article in the Atlantic:
What’s most novel here is his argument about how technology changes us. He cites the development of the clock, which changed the rhythm of life. He writes: “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.” He also relates a vignette about how using a typewriter changed the way Nietzsche wrote. And then he segues into the Internet, which “is becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewrite, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.
It is certainly changing the way we work — we use e-mail to replace direct conversations, we mine data to learn things about our customers they themselves don’t realize, and it appears to flatten organizations — and render many of our jobs obsolete (Carr, in his book, notes that Skype has double the customers of British Telecom and about 99,800 fewer employees). It is unclear what will emerge from this digital maelstrom. But are we being reprogrammed, our brains shifting their circuits to honor how the Web works?
It seems the Fitzgerald is using his blog to defend the Google nation. He even goes as far as saying the users of Google will inevitably outlive Google in the near future. He even quotes Robert Darnton, the director of the university Library at Harvard as saying:
Companies decline rapidly in the fast-changing environment of electronic technology. Google may disappear or be eclipsed by an even greater technology, which could make its database as outdated and inaccessible as many of our old floppy disks and CD-ROMs. Electronic enterprises come and go. Research libraries last for centuries. Better to fortify them than to declare them obsolete, because obsolescence is built into the electronic media.
In conclusion Fitzgerald uses rhetorical questions, which are carefully embedded in his blog to try and defuse the potent juggernaut that was unleashed upon the world via the words of Nicholas Carr.
Fitzgerald writes in his blog:
Carr is not a Luddite per se, but he joins a long line of techno-skeptics going all the way back to Socrates, who argued that people should not write things down, because it would impair their memories (Carr knows this, and mentioned Socrates in his essay).
Fitzgerald also writes this in response to Carr’s article in the Atlantic:
What’s most novel here is his argument about how technology changes us. He cites the development of the clock, which changed the rhythm of life. He writes: “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.” He also relates a vignette about how using a typewriter changed the way Nietzsche wrote. And then he segues into the Internet, which “is becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewrite, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.
It is certainly changing the way we work — we use e-mail to replace direct conversations, we mine data to learn things about our customers they themselves don’t realize, and it appears to flatten organizations — and render many of our jobs obsolete (Carr, in his book, notes that Skype has double the customers of British Telecom and about 99,800 fewer employees). It is unclear what will emerge from this digital maelstrom. But are we being reprogrammed, our brains shifting their circuits to honor how the Web works?
It seems the Fitzgerald is using his blog to defend the Google nation. He even goes as far as saying the users of Google will inevitably outlive Google in the near future. He even quotes Robert Darnton, the director of the university Library at Harvard as saying:
Companies decline rapidly in the fast-changing environment of electronic technology. Google may disappear or be eclipsed by an even greater technology, which could make its database as outdated and inaccessible as many of our old floppy disks and CD-ROMs. Electronic enterprises come and go. Research libraries last for centuries. Better to fortify them than to declare them obsolete, because obsolescence is built into the electronic media.
In conclusion Fitzgerald uses rhetorical questions, which are carefully embedded in his blog to try and defuse the potent juggernaut that was unleashed upon the world via the words of Nicholas Carr.
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
It is an interesting question that is posed by author Nicholas Carr. He writes early in the article for the Atlantic that something is different.
Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory.
He feels that his capacity for learning is being diminished via the use of technology and its sheer and utter convenience. He carefully crafts a well constructed essay on how the technology and its ease of access have both good qualities and bad. He carefully constructs a rhetorical dialogue between both of these schools of thought that in the ends condemns Google and all internet research.
Carr uses an almost perfect metaphor that describes the mind shaping power of the internet when it writes:
“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”
This is a beautiful example that is both accurate and visually stimulating for the reader. The deep reading that we once did, where we could immerse ourselves deeply in texts and be able to craft excellent nuggets of intuitive interpretations, have given rise to our inability to process large amounts of text because of our reliance of the internet.
Carr furthers his claim by suggesting immediate results that come from the pressing of just a few keys on a keyboard has removed the inefficiency of spending weeks researching in the library and thus becomes a valuable resource. He even quantifies this analysis when he quotes Bruce Friedman, a blogger on computers and technology, as saying:
“I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year.”
Carr goes even further in damning the internet format for reading and researching when he writes about Maryanne Wolf’s study. This evidence he provides lashes out at all contemporary technology as a reason for people’s inability to immerse themselves in “sea of words”:
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace.
To help Carr make his point he quotes the neuroscience professor who directs the Kransnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, James Olds.
“even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
Humans end up taking on the qualities of the technologies that we use. It is the case of the tool changing the way the operator works. This argument was established way back when Plato argued against the use of writing in the intellectual pursuits and still rage in schools today with the use of calculators and spell check. People are always arguing against the use of technology for the reasons of too much reliance or fear of its ability to control and change our patterns of thought. It is not a new thing and I am sure it is not the last time we will hear it. Technology: writing, the use of a word processor or spell check can only be the tools at the disposal of the user. It is the user that ends up allowing these items to take control of their thought patterns. I am not sure how one can ascertain how the internet can make us stupid. It is in fact, we have allowed ourselves to become lazier because of the internet’s ease of use. It is people that have lost the desire to pursue “Truth” and settle with facts. Facts that we do not store in our own residual memories in order to be able to recall when needed. We have in fact found it easier to search and agree with the first post found after a search. We are allowing ourselves to become reprogrammed because it is easier than actually learning.
Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory.
He feels that his capacity for learning is being diminished via the use of technology and its sheer and utter convenience. He carefully crafts a well constructed essay on how the technology and its ease of access have both good qualities and bad. He carefully constructs a rhetorical dialogue between both of these schools of thought that in the ends condemns Google and all internet research.
Carr uses an almost perfect metaphor that describes the mind shaping power of the internet when it writes:
“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”
This is a beautiful example that is both accurate and visually stimulating for the reader. The deep reading that we once did, where we could immerse ourselves deeply in texts and be able to craft excellent nuggets of intuitive interpretations, have given rise to our inability to process large amounts of text because of our reliance of the internet.
Carr furthers his claim by suggesting immediate results that come from the pressing of just a few keys on a keyboard has removed the inefficiency of spending weeks researching in the library and thus becomes a valuable resource. He even quantifies this analysis when he quotes Bruce Friedman, a blogger on computers and technology, as saying:
“I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year.”
Carr goes even further in damning the internet format for reading and researching when he writes about Maryanne Wolf’s study. This evidence he provides lashes out at all contemporary technology as a reason for people’s inability to immerse themselves in “sea of words”:
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace.
To help Carr make his point he quotes the neuroscience professor who directs the Kransnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, James Olds.
“even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
Humans end up taking on the qualities of the technologies that we use. It is the case of the tool changing the way the operator works. This argument was established way back when Plato argued against the use of writing in the intellectual pursuits and still rage in schools today with the use of calculators and spell check. People are always arguing against the use of technology for the reasons of too much reliance or fear of its ability to control and change our patterns of thought. It is not a new thing and I am sure it is not the last time we will hear it. Technology: writing, the use of a word processor or spell check can only be the tools at the disposal of the user. It is the user that ends up allowing these items to take control of their thought patterns. I am not sure how one can ascertain how the internet can make us stupid. It is in fact, we have allowed ourselves to become lazier because of the internet’s ease of use. It is people that have lost the desire to pursue “Truth” and settle with facts. Facts that we do not store in our own residual memories in order to be able to recall when needed. We have in fact found it easier to search and agree with the first post found after a search. We are allowing ourselves to become reprogrammed because it is easier than actually learning.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ben and Jerry giving up their shipment of milk for a week
Money, Money and Mo’ Money.
The question where do we cut spending is becoming increasingly more important and news worthy especially as the print age seems to be dying out. The more the end users depends upon the internet for their information on life, politics, local stories, sports and all other things that pertain to money the less people use their newspapers as a source of information. Thus, greatly diminishing the profits sustained by the companies that own that medium.
This becomes problematic however, especially when the internet sources are often driven by facts generated by newspapers. On the flip side of that most newspapers are dependent upon AP news wire as a place to get fast reliable facts for their publications. Now what will happen if they begin to post news without AP to back them up? What will happen when the news comes in at a slower pace and leads for reporters get missed and followed up by the competitors? Would that be sacrificing integrity and name recognition and wouldn’t that be a heavier burden to carry?
Chicago Tribune has chosen to not use AP for a week to see if they can “do without it.” Seems like a steep investment to give up. It seems like this is as if Ben and Jerry giving up their shipment of milk for a week to see if they can sustain their business.
The question where do we cut spending is becoming increasingly more important and news worthy especially as the print age seems to be dying out. The more the end users depends upon the internet for their information on life, politics, local stories, sports and all other things that pertain to money the less people use their newspapers as a source of information. Thus, greatly diminishing the profits sustained by the companies that own that medium.
This becomes problematic however, especially when the internet sources are often driven by facts generated by newspapers. On the flip side of that most newspapers are dependent upon AP news wire as a place to get fast reliable facts for their publications. Now what will happen if they begin to post news without AP to back them up? What will happen when the news comes in at a slower pace and leads for reporters get missed and followed up by the competitors? Would that be sacrificing integrity and name recognition and wouldn’t that be a heavier burden to carry?
Chicago Tribune has chosen to not use AP for a week to see if they can “do without it.” Seems like a steep investment to give up. It seems like this is as if Ben and Jerry giving up their shipment of milk for a week to see if they can sustain their business.
The Google effect on News
Money: everyone wants it and everyone is in pursuit of it. However, it has become a limited resource of late. The New York Times has taken a page from Google’s business model, the one that states “a billion dollars, one nickel at a time.” The Times has taken a larger bite out of what once was considered the bottom of the food chain. The Times has begun to believe that they “can take tiny sources of local revenue and roll them into big money.”
With the decline of sales in the world of newspaper media, the local ad revenue online has been on a continuous rise and is projected to grow 5.4% in 2009. That kind of rise will add up to $13.3 billion in profits according to media research firm Borrell Associates. That seems like a great market to tap into if you are a fledgling company desperate to raise financial numbers by the end of the fiscal year.
There appears to be real BUSINESS in hyperlocal links, and someone would be foolish to turn their backs to such an idea. In fact the media mogul, Google, has also tried to cash in on these profits via their incorporation of Patch.
Hyperlocal has been met with resistance from many local sites, because they did not want to share their take of the profits of the local market. This seems to becoming a battle of epic proportions. One that can only be compared to the battles fought by the treacherous bands of marauders: the Jets and the Sharks. The casualties being the news: false reports and inaccurate details fill the reports that are being fed to public, as the Alpha dogs rage war against the home teams.
The article begins to contradict itself as it begins to crunch the numbers. At the end of the second section of the article the authors suggest that each town/ market would benefit from such a venture. “The local-ad market represents a great opportunity to create sustainable community specific information sources.” My question is how? How will they better be informed from this type of reporting rather than the homegrown grass roots approach a localized weekly publication takes? So far as hyperlocal, I understand how it has financial gain for its contributors and advertisers, but what concerns me becomes the usage of this idea. Does it function as a creditable source of news and information provider?
In the third section of the article “can Anyone Tap the $100 Billion Potential of Hyperlocal News?” Gluckstadt quotes Schachter as saying: “our hypothesis is that there is a swath of people—experts of various sorts, journalists, self trained bloggers—who would want our assistance in professionalizing their work and who would love to be associated with the Times. We could help those people mobilize their communities and gather local-advertising dollars in extremely low-cost ways. ” This sounds like a public relations comment that appears without confrontation rather than one open to questions. It seems here they are trying to legitimizing the news told by the local amateur and self concerning blogger to propagandize their own towns at a minimal cost to the Time. What about the quality of news or the impartiality that a professional journalist brings to their material?
Schachter finally addresses my concern of quality by claiming “It’s safe to say that we would exercise whatever level of oversight was required to protect the standing of our news brand” and “every word that appears on the Local has a Times editor reviewing it.” This makes me more comfortable in the idea of the editorial process in this local news blogs, however are they editing grammar, spelling diction etc. or are they checking the facts and creating the sheen of impartiality too? I just feel too skeptical about the whole thing. How can anything that seems so profitable to all involved be profitable to masses as well? I guess I will have to wait and see if Chester ever gets its own hyperlocal link and make my own judgments that are free of biases and altered facts.
With the decline of sales in the world of newspaper media, the local ad revenue online has been on a continuous rise and is projected to grow 5.4% in 2009. That kind of rise will add up to $13.3 billion in profits according to media research firm Borrell Associates. That seems like a great market to tap into if you are a fledgling company desperate to raise financial numbers by the end of the fiscal year.
There appears to be real BUSINESS in hyperlocal links, and someone would be foolish to turn their backs to such an idea. In fact the media mogul, Google, has also tried to cash in on these profits via their incorporation of Patch.
Hyperlocal has been met with resistance from many local sites, because they did not want to share their take of the profits of the local market. This seems to becoming a battle of epic proportions. One that can only be compared to the battles fought by the treacherous bands of marauders: the Jets and the Sharks. The casualties being the news: false reports and inaccurate details fill the reports that are being fed to public, as the Alpha dogs rage war against the home teams.
The article begins to contradict itself as it begins to crunch the numbers. At the end of the second section of the article the authors suggest that each town/ market would benefit from such a venture. “The local-ad market represents a great opportunity to create sustainable community specific information sources.” My question is how? How will they better be informed from this type of reporting rather than the homegrown grass roots approach a localized weekly publication takes? So far as hyperlocal, I understand how it has financial gain for its contributors and advertisers, but what concerns me becomes the usage of this idea. Does it function as a creditable source of news and information provider?
In the third section of the article “can Anyone Tap the $100 Billion Potential of Hyperlocal News?” Gluckstadt quotes Schachter as saying: “our hypothesis is that there is a swath of people—experts of various sorts, journalists, self trained bloggers—who would want our assistance in professionalizing their work and who would love to be associated with the Times. We could help those people mobilize their communities and gather local-advertising dollars in extremely low-cost ways. ” This sounds like a public relations comment that appears without confrontation rather than one open to questions. It seems here they are trying to legitimizing the news told by the local amateur and self concerning blogger to propagandize their own towns at a minimal cost to the Time. What about the quality of news or the impartiality that a professional journalist brings to their material?
Schachter finally addresses my concern of quality by claiming “It’s safe to say that we would exercise whatever level of oversight was required to protect the standing of our news brand” and “every word that appears on the Local has a Times editor reviewing it.” This makes me more comfortable in the idea of the editorial process in this local news blogs, however are they editing grammar, spelling diction etc. or are they checking the facts and creating the sheen of impartiality too? I just feel too skeptical about the whole thing. How can anything that seems so profitable to all involved be profitable to masses as well? I guess I will have to wait and see if Chester ever gets its own hyperlocal link and make my own judgments that are free of biases and altered facts.
Hyper "Loco"
Are gone the days where people read printed articles on large format pages? Are the days of getting your local news via the local section of the newspaper? Are the days behind us that leave ink marks on our hands and shirts? Or better yet, gone are the days of conversation and idea sharing?
With a large number of Web start-up companies creating “hyper local news sites that let people zoom in on what is happening closest to them, often without involving traditional journalists” people seem to be getting more of the scoop that is important to them. These sites link several different things together from local government to local fine dining.
When someone is too close to a subject, they tend to have opinions and values upon subject that is all their own. It is in this connection that biases get created and real news gets tainted. If a bill gets past by the local government that implements more money to schools and the writer has the ability to editorialize their point of view upon the subject. This becomes especially dangerous, to the locals, when that writer is not objective to the process of delivering the news and becomes subjective to the gathering of it.
Then there is the question that arises when the local businesses become a controlling interest in the information being reported because as Ms. Miller and Mr. Stone declare, in their New York Times article entitled “’Hyperlocal’ websites Deliver News without Newspapers” “like traditional media, the hyperlocal sites have to find a way to bring in sufficient revenue to support their businesses”. Does this affect the way that news is going to be dispersed? How could it not? A business’s main priority to make money and the best way to make money is to please those that grant you more money. Please the investors and you will be pleased with the bottom line. “Advertisers want that kind of targeting, but they also want to reach more people, so there’s a paradox.”
Another thing that occurs to me is this just seems to be another way to promote self importance. Like how Facebook promotes the individual, the idea of hyperlocal links promotes the individual’s town. When a person wants to bask in their own greatness they can go to Facebook, but if they want to remember that they reside in Eden they can go to the hyper local links. Thus granting the idea of “EveryBlock”
The article written by Miller and stone declares the notion “When you slice further and further down, you get smaller and smaller audiences. ” The idea that people need ease of access to all the local trends: in politics, or what the best restaurant in the area is this just seems to be another way to break down interpersonal relationships and leaves no need to have communication with anyone else. In conclusion, I fear that opinions and “facts” will begin to appear in front of the reader rather than unbiased news reporting. The facts then will be interpreted and evaluated by someone in the local area that is not a professionally trained journalist, tends to cause me worry.
With a large number of Web start-up companies creating “hyper local news sites that let people zoom in on what is happening closest to them, often without involving traditional journalists” people seem to be getting more of the scoop that is important to them. These sites link several different things together from local government to local fine dining.
When someone is too close to a subject, they tend to have opinions and values upon subject that is all their own. It is in this connection that biases get created and real news gets tainted. If a bill gets past by the local government that implements more money to schools and the writer has the ability to editorialize their point of view upon the subject. This becomes especially dangerous, to the locals, when that writer is not objective to the process of delivering the news and becomes subjective to the gathering of it.
Then there is the question that arises when the local businesses become a controlling interest in the information being reported because as Ms. Miller and Mr. Stone declare, in their New York Times article entitled “’Hyperlocal’ websites Deliver News without Newspapers” “like traditional media, the hyperlocal sites have to find a way to bring in sufficient revenue to support their businesses”. Does this affect the way that news is going to be dispersed? How could it not? A business’s main priority to make money and the best way to make money is to please those that grant you more money. Please the investors and you will be pleased with the bottom line. “Advertisers want that kind of targeting, but they also want to reach more people, so there’s a paradox.”
Another thing that occurs to me is this just seems to be another way to promote self importance. Like how Facebook promotes the individual, the idea of hyperlocal links promotes the individual’s town. When a person wants to bask in their own greatness they can go to Facebook, but if they want to remember that they reside in Eden they can go to the hyper local links. Thus granting the idea of “EveryBlock”
The article written by Miller and stone declares the notion “When you slice further and further down, you get smaller and smaller audiences. ” The idea that people need ease of access to all the local trends: in politics, or what the best restaurant in the area is this just seems to be another way to break down interpersonal relationships and leaves no need to have communication with anyone else. In conclusion, I fear that opinions and “facts” will begin to appear in front of the reader rather than unbiased news reporting. The facts then will be interpreted and evaluated by someone in the local area that is not a professionally trained journalist, tends to cause me worry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)