Tuesday 21 February 2012

Meta-Aware Journalism

Do you think media is aware if itself as media? That is, does the media in its delivery of content reflect a self-critical or self-aware role it has either in its constitution / composition or as part of an overarching genre? For this blog, find a newspaper article (or any other media source around you) on a topic of your choosing and ask if it contains a metatextual component. In this way, does it reconfigure or recognise itself as writing? If so, do you think it means to subvert, satirise, or accurately depict the content? This blog topic wants you to explore the different relationships that exist before our eyes in media, especially in relation to our role as reader/listener/viewer as well as to the role of the journalist or media source in general.

Headache epidemic caused by having to think

18-01-12

EXPERTS have warned the Wikipedia blackout will cause widescale brain injuries as people try to know things.
Image
Emma dropped an Encyclopedia Britannica on her head after forgetting that big books are quite heavy
The protest, triggered by American plans to make their internet more like China's, will last for 24 hours and make the Daily Sport the most factually-accurate newspaper in the UK as it is usually correct about the chest measurements.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute For Studies, said: "The part of the brain used for retaining facts has devolved so sharply in the last 10 years that people trying to look up something on Wikipedia will be physically unable to remember why they can't, because that would require knowing two things at once.

"As well as the piercing migraines normally associated with Davina McCall, the brain may also try using other parts usually associated with motor function or bladder control, leaving people slumped on the floor covered in piss as they try to remember the capital of Ukraine."

Until Wikipedia is restored Brubaker has advised using more traditional sources of completely unverified information, such as phoning up your dad or asking that bloke down the pub.
However, there are fears the website could return with a completely fictitious set of entries, as opposed to the wildly approximate database currently used by the world's feckless.

Brubaker warned: "The effort involved in going to one of the country's six remaining libraries and finding the relevant reference book to check whether Wikipedia is correct in naming Little Jimmy Osmond as the attorney general of Namibia is more than most people can be bothered with.

"This could usher in a new information age where facts are approximate and allowed to change depending on their popularity.

"The Vatican is going to fucking shit with joy."


The article I chose comes from a British website called "The Daily Mash", which satirizes and provides parodic commentary for current new stories. The article essentially makes fun of people for relying on Wikipedia to supply them with simple, basic knowledge rather than look for it elsewhere, such as in a book, therefore showing the ever-increasing dependance society is developing on technology and media. The temporary shutdown of Wikipedia was heavily publicized but not in such as way as this site does so. Websites such as "The Daily Mash" can be considered very metatextual due to what they 'report' and how they do it. They claim to be news websites, and because of the way sites such as this are laid out and written up, the articles could pass as newsworthy, but the fact is, its not necessarily fact that is being reported. The piece I have chosen has been manipulated and exaggerated in details so much that is cannot actually be true, nobody is really losing bladder control due to their brains multitasking (at least, not in relation to Wikipedia), the reporters know this -- they are mainly parodying the act of news reporting itself. If this article appeared in a legitimate, serious newspaper, it would be ridiculous. The goal of these falsified news websites is to show the public their own malleability and susceptibility to accept untrue information as fact simply because of the way it is presented. "The Daily Mash" is a parody site, it serves to satirize and its writers are very self-aware of its manipulation.

The aim of these parody news sites is definitely not to portray accurate content. For example, in the above article, the author has used prestigious titles such as "expert" and "professor" within the piece to make it seem like the content has some authoritative backing, to make it look more believable to their readers, when really there is no veritable content to back up in the first place. However, since these words are used, the intended audience will have an easier time taking it as fact. In this way, the writers of "The Daily Mash" are very meta-aware. They know their audience, and how to manipulate their readings to their advantage. There are people who will read the article and take it as fact, and there are people who will read it as satire -- point is, the article appeals to both sets of people, and the author is very self-aware in writing it to be taken in by both.

The relationship between media and the viewer has certainly become twisted. With so much inaccurate information out there claiming to be fact, and that can be changed by anyone at anytime through opensource sharing, it is difficult to be aware of what is reliable. Websites like "The Daily Mash" exemplify through satire the willingness of the public to accept as fact anything deemed news. They shine light on the influence of journalism and media on societal ideas and what people believe to be reality. This satirical ability is self-awareness in itself and demonstrates just how metacritical the article, and the website, really is.

Monday 6 February 2012

Radicalism in Printing

Your first blog/journal topic is on radicalism in printing. For this, you will want to think about how technologies of (print) production shape our access to information. For example, consider Gutenberg, Martin Luther, William Blake to SOPA and beyond in your responses. Given our discussion on open-source, you may want to use "Wikipedia" as your first point of entry for each aforementioned person or political bill.

In class we have talked a lot about opensource media and the implications of knowledge becoming universally owned due to digitization. The idea behind opensource information is that it is passed along without individual ownership, meaning anybody can add to or change it whenever they please. This can be considered a beneficial or harmful concept, depending on the way you look at it. Consider the computer operating system Linux; it was created on the basis of free or opensource software, and has become one of the most widely used and widely praised systems out there -- because it was improved upon by so many people during its development. However, there are some negative phenomena that have arisen due to opensource sharing as well. For instance, Wikipedia (from which I, shamefully, have gathered the majority of my information for this post) claims to be "the free encyclopedia", leading us to believe that the information found on its one million plus pages is factual when in reality, there is free reign for anybody to come in and change it at random. If this is the case, how can we be sure that we are getting academic information? Where should the line between opensource and academic ownership fall? Is it fair to charge people for knowledge? This is where it gets fuzzy.

In ancient times, knowledge was shared orally, by word of mouth, along generations of people until the direct origins or owner of the knowledge became indistinguishaable. In such times of epics such as the Iliad or the Odyssey, it was difficult to trace the authors because they had be retold so many times and filled in where parts were forgotten to perhaps become something completely different from the original. These epics do have authors names put on them, but if they have deviated so much in their retellings from the original, doesn't this make them publicly owned knowledge? Only when stories and information began being recorded did concrete ownership come into being.

Gutenberg revolutionized the spread of learning and knowledge to the masses with his invention of the printing press in 1439 which allowed for the distribution of printed books. Therefore, information once possessed by a few became widely known to the general public, while the authors and publishers still technically retained ownership and thus profited from it. The opensource media that is becoming increasingly popular today severely decreases this profit margin. While sources like Wikipedia can be useful for everyday people who want to access information quickly and cheaply, it can be a hindrance. Because knowledge is becoming so widely accessible and alterable, the validity of such knowledge comes into question. If people besides academics are allowed to manipulate the accessible information in the media so easily, how can we pick out what is fact and what is fiction?

Being a student, I cannot say that opensource isn't a lifesaver. I am granted free information from plenty of sites that I can use to do my schoolwork -- and with the expense of copyrighted materials, I am very thankful -- such as this very same blog post, fueled by Wikipedia. However, I am more comforted using sources deemed "academic" so I know that they are reliable. I would never use Wikipedia for an essay or research paper because I dont know where the information is coming from. In this way, like many of my classmates, I may prefer paying for a scholarly source because I feel that it is more trustworthy. Maybe SOPA is a good thing, shutting down sites that illegally use copyrighted intellectual materials, that would certainly ensure that the available information maintains its academic integrity. Though would the enforcement of SOPA mean that any materials are left available? I would definitely miss the accessibility and have troubles completing my university assignments if this were the case, much less my favourite youtube videos.

All in all, it seems to me that information sharing is coming full circle. Way back in the times of the epics everybody had a claim to the stories and knowledge passed around, private ownership was hard to pin down. This is much like the digitization and opensource sharing we have today. Sure, there are people who have come up with the ideas first, but opensource allows them to be modified and substituted publicly to the benefit of the masses. Whether this is reliable or not is completely dependent on the source. Opensource media has revolutionized the spread of information today much like Gutenberg and the printing press in the fifteen hundreds by expanding our knowledge. There are certainly flaws in its mechanics and validity of information in some cases, it definitely increases access to everyday knowledge (warped or otherwise) to some extent, which is nothing to sneeze at. Afterall, without opensource, I probably wouldn't have even been able to finish this blog post.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_culture#Transition_to_the_digital_era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux