Nerves

“Breathe” I keep telling myself, “You will be okay – it’s only the other side of the world.”

Exactly.

Tomorrow evening I will take off on what I am sure will be one of the greatest years of my life. Two months travelling England and America, then up to Canada where I will begin a year’s study at the University of Calgary.

I have been planning this adventure for over a year. I have been so excited and filled out countless forms. I have packed my bags, organised flights, accommodation and tours. And all of a sudden tomorrow is lift off. No more days to cross off my count down.

I am so scared.

Of course, these nerves are all part of the adventure. I decided to do this so I could challenge myself – leaving is part of the challenge. I will be exploring places I know nothing about and I will learn so much about myself and the world. I am so lucky to have my family with me for the first three weeks in England and then I will meet up with one of my best friends, Christie, in America. So familiar faces will never be far away. Still, leaving everything I know behind is going to be hard.

My aim for this trip? Be brave, be friendly and ‘go with the flow’. And HAVE FUN!!! I am looking forward to making new friends and creating amazing memories.

I have wanted this so badly and I have worked really hard to make it happen. That hasn’t always been easy but the adventure begins tomorrow and it is going to be incredible. It is weird to think that tomorrow is going to be a life-changing day.

 

“We never stand still, we are constant motion, all of us cosmic dancers. We are born to trip the light fantastic, to step and bow on the world stage, keeping our own perspectives but always in the context and awareness of others. We are duty bound to act universally, for while we are each a child of our own culture, we must never lose sight of how closely related we are. Dance on this knowledge for it is time to take another step, another leap into a future of love, curiosity, learning and pride in the whole of humankind and the vast experience that is our common legacy.” – Anthea Paul, Girlosophy

 

 

 

 

You don’t know who I am – Anonymity online

Source: http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

The Internet is increasingly being used to interact with others in infinitely varied contexts and formats. I think one of the most important ways in which this occurs is the ability for internet users to now comment on news and journal articles. This can be seen to facilitate a richer form of debate with not only the original publishers able to make educated and insightful contributions. The ABC ‘s Self Service Science online forum is a fantastic example of this, where “scientists and fans of ‘sleek geek’ educator Dr Karl Kruszelnicki” collaborate to discuss events and theories and problem solve (Martin, 2012, 149).

As we use the Internet more and more frequently to interact with others, questions have arisen about the ability to remain anonymous online. Anonymity allows people to comment on issues that they otherwise may not feel comfortable debating. They have the freedom to state what they believe without the fear of repercussions.

However, as Fiona Martin (2013) indicates, “we don’t, necessarily, yet have a set of inculturated responses to how we can communicate with people online.”

As such, the anonymity and “perceived disembodiment” of online communication can mean contributors are less likely to act civilly (Martin, 2012, 180). This can lead to abusive behaviours where contributors will personally offend or ‘troll’ others rather than engage in constructive debate.

Source: http://www.sodahead.com/fun/have-you-ever-really-pulled-a-gun-on-someone-besides-here-on-sodaheadlol/question-2082023/?link=ibaf&q=shhh

This type of behaviour can be seen as a silencing mechanism. People may be deterred from contributing to a discussion for fear of being abused, but also, Martin (2013) argues that negative comments can sway responses to the original event or argument. People may be less likely to engage in the original piece if they see it has already been met with a range of unfavourable responses.

Whether or not anonymity is a good thing on the Internet is difficult to judge. As Lee (2006, 7) argues, “individuals should have the right to choose how they want to communicate on the Internet.” However, I wonder if it even feasible to consider that anonymity will continue to be available to online participants?

As Waters (2013) argues “most of what happens online these days is tied to making inferences about someone else’s identity.” We log onto many websites by using our Facebook details (which requires our true identity) and the use of cookies to allow websites to track our online behaviour which means that even when we don’t provide identification those websites are able to build a profile of us. Waters (2013) persuasively argues that as the ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ worlds become ever more intertwined, identity online becomes increasingly important as we need to be able to trust who, what and where we are dealing with.

Lee, Y (2006) ‘Internet and Anonymity’ Society, Vol 43, No. 4, pp 5-7

Martin, F (2012) ‘Vox Populi, Vox Dei: ABC Online and the risks of dialogic interaction’ Histories of Public Service Broadcasters on the Web, editors, N Brugger and M Burns. New York: Peter Lang, pp 177-192.

Martin, F (2013) ‘Mediating the Conversation’, BCM310, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, 20 May.

Waters, R (2013) ‘Inside Business: Online anonymity to be confined to virtual history’ Financial Times, accessed 24 May 2013, <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5bf712b4-b281-11e2-a388-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2U9m5tTMJ >

Equal Access

Source: http://schools.aldine.k12.tx.us/webs/agls2geny/the_equal_access_act.htm

As technology has continued to develop and in many ways increase social inclusion, an interesting paradox has come about. These new technologies are creating news ways for people living with disabilities to be excluded (Goggin and Newell, 2007, 159).

Take, for example, the first generation iPhone with its fancy, new, smooth, touch screen. How could a Blind person possibly use that?!

Over time, features, such as Voice Over and Siri, were added to the iPhone to make it more accessible, which is great (Kornowski, 2012). However, Goggin and Newell (2007, 160) make the argument that the needs of disabled people should taken into consideration from the very beginning and incorporated into the design of new technologies “rather than having to be an expensive and not particularly compatible add-on and after-thought.” There are simple changes that could be made which would instantly allow certain technologies to become accessible.

In his article, Michael Lockrey (2011) discusses how the switch to Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) has created yet another situation where members of the Australian public are being left behind. It is very rare for IPTV to provide closed captions which means that content through this medium is inaccessible to those who are Deaf. It seems that ensuring closed captions were available on IPTV content would not have been an overly difficult venture, and what better time to start providing the closed captions than with the introduction of the medium itself?

While there are a number of situations where technology does incorporate elements which cater for different disabilities. In order to limit, and even better stop, discrimination we need to ensure all technology and media content is accessible to all people where it is possible. As Lockrey (2011) argues this “needs to be addressed urgently, or the digital divide will widen.”

Goggin, G and C Newell (2007) ‘The Business of Digital Disability’ The Information Society: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp159-168.

Kornowski, L (2012) ‘How the Blind Are Re-inventing the iPhone’ The Atlantic, accessed 16 May 2013, <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-blind-are-reinventing-the-iphone/256589/ >

Lockerey, M (2011) ‘Forget set top boxes, what about accessibility?’ Ramp Up, accessed 15 May 2013, <http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2011/05/30/3230881.htm>

A multigrain future?

In recent times there has been debate around the role of Australian media in regards to multiculturalism. Australia has been accused of having a ‘white bread’ media. This refers to the idea that our media is a very processed, less nutritious form of coverage. We fail to give even representation to different cultures and as such don’t give an accurate depiction of our society.

As Tanja Dreher (p1) argues “media are central to both relatively unproblematic experiences of ‘everyday multiculturalism’, and to everyday experiences of racism in Australia.” This is a fascinating paradox.

Who could forget the role media was seen to play in the 2005 Cronulla riots?

In the week leading up to this event the media reported about an incident on the beach with some off-duty lifeguards, broadcast an SMS about ‘wog bashing day’ and on Alan Jones’ talk-back radio show 2GB he actually gave the location of where people were planning to meet (Poynting, p87). In reports, the media also tapped into a long history of moral panics by focussing on the Bankstown gang rapes which had been reported as being race crimes (Poynting, p87). The media can been seen to have almost instigated these events because they blew the issues out of proportion thus creating a moral panic.

However, it’s not all bad in our media landscape.

There have been some exciting developments. Certain cultures have taken control of the situation and are beginning to broadcast themselves. A fantastic example of this is the panel show Salam Cafe on SBS TV. Much like The Chaser, this show discusses current news and produces skits with a real Aussie sense of humour. The difference? The show is created by young Australian Muslims. Salam Cafe helps to ease racist tensions by normalising Islam and helping portray Muslims as being regular human beings (Dreher, p4). As Molitorisz (2008) indicates, the show “is funny but also poignant, giving an insight into the sort of prejudices and misconceptions faced by Muslim Aussies.”

While there is still a long way to come, the emergence of programs like Salam Cafe suggest a lot of hope for the future and I would like to think that more programs like it will be produced. We need to celebrate the incredible diversity Australia has to offer.

Dreher, T (forthcoming 2014) ‘White Bread Media’ in The Media and Communications in Australia, eds S Cunningham and S Turnbull, Allen and Unwin.

Molitorisz, S (2008) ‘Salam Cafe aims to bust misconceptions about Muslims’ The Age in AussieMuslims.net, accessed 9 May 2013 <http://www.aussiemuslims.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=45 >

Poynting, S ‘What caused the Cronulla riot?’ Race & Class, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp85-92.

Tethered appliances and censorship

Source: http://www.behance.net/gallery/iBrain/1698462 

 

When you look around it is easy to see that tethered appliances have been embraced by a huge percentage of the population. Nearly every person I know, for example, owns at least one Apple product. A basic definition of what we mean by ‘tethered’ is technological devices and services that are still controlled by the manufacturer long after they are purchased by the individual. The manufacturer alone holds the power to change the device and the software available to it. They are able to provide updates, back up our data and monitor how the device is used, from afar.

The situation this creates has been compared to the old feudal system in which peasants would work on a manor lord’s land in exchange for military protection. The big companies, like Apple, have become our lords. “We give up a certain amount of control, and in exchange we trust that our lords will both treat us well and protect us from harm” (Schenier, 2012).

Tethered appliances offer security and are user friendly. The manufacturers maintaining control means that individuals don’t need to worry about updates or downloading security features. They are hassle free and easily accessible. But we need to be very careful in using such appliances because they give big companies so much power!

Manufacturers are able to control how the device is used and what information can be accessed on it. As Zittrain (p.94) demonstrates this could raise issues to do with censorship – “with products tethered to the network, regulators… finally have a toolkit for exercising meaningful control over the famously anarchic Internet.” If they can control what information we access, what is to stop them manipulating our understanding of different events and indeed opinions on the companies themselves? Co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin adds depth to this issue arguing “to the extent that free flow of information threatens the powerful, those in power will seek to suppress it” (Arthur 2012). As such, I believe there needs to be close regulation on how companies use tethered appliances, and as Schneier (2012) argues, we need these regulations to protect ourselves.

Overall I think that tethered appliances themselves are too ingrained in our lives to try and stop them being used. The security and convenience they provide is great. We just need to ensure we’re not so blinded by the benefits, that we allow our ‘lords’ to abuse their position. 

 

Arthur, C (2012) ‘Google’s Sergey Brin: state filtering of dissent threatens web freedom’ The Guardian.

Schneier, B (2012) ‘When it comes to security, we’re back to feudalism’ Schneier.com, viewed 2 May 2013, < http://www.schneier.com/essay-406.html>.

Zittrain, J. ‘Tethered Appliances, Software as Service, and Perfect Enforcement’ The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp101-126.

 

The Future of University Education

The emergence of the Internet is argued by Richard Miller to be the “greatest change in human communication in human history… its communicative powers surpass all the preceding technologies for enabling and enhancing human understanding combined” (2009, 143). Of course, this has created the opportunity for education to be provided in ways like never before. But how should existing universities react to these possibilities?

I think the answer is simple – ’embrace it’! It doesn’t seem like there is another option anyway.

Education should be seen as a right, not a privilege – and definitely not something that can only be achieved by those with the money or the opportunity to attend university in person. The internet means that people can access education anywhere across the globe and this is a good thing.

However, in order to actually make formal education available over the internet it is necessary for universities to make changes to how subjects are taught and assessed. This subject, BCM310, provides good examples of the different ways in which the internet can be used. Lectures are recorded and placed online, tutorials may involve communicating with other students via a forum, and assignments can be conducted and submitted online – for example, this very blog!

An interesting aspect of online education is the creation of ‘MOOC’s (massive open online courses) which provide classes on a variety of topics for free. Students enrol in the class and will usually be required to watch short video lectures then complete assignments which will be graded by their peers (The Chronicle of Higher Education 2013). These courses are becoming increasingly popular and are something which universities will have to address. Why would someone pay to attend uni if they can learn online for free? Some universities, such as Stanford and Harvard, are already beginning to embrace MOOCs and I think this will provide for a very interesting learning environment in the future.

 

Miller, R (2009) ‘The Coming Apocalypse’ Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition and Culture, Vol 2, No 1, p143-150

‘Welcome to the Brave New World of MOOCS (Massive Open Online Courses)’ (2013) The New York Times, viewed 18 April 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqQNvmQH_YM>

‘What you need to know about MOOCs’ (2013) The Chronicle of Higher Education, viewed 18 April 2013, <http://chronicle.com/article/What-You-Need-to-Know-About/133475/>

Does professional journalism have a place in the future?

 

It is difficult to discuss the future of journalism with any real certainty because the situation is still unfolding. The increase in participatory journalism has meant that the structure of journalism is already beginning to shift. There seems to be more dialogue between the professionals and the public at large, rather than a one way approach where the professional journalists sit separate from society and communicate to them what is important.

 

The development of the internet has meant that now everybody has the capacity to put out a story and ‘publish’ their opinions. This leads to questions about the role of professional journalists. As Quandt (2011, 172) argues the emergence of participatory journalism has been met with unease by some professionals who can see it as both a threat to their individual jobs and the integrity of the profession at large. “Doing journalism requires following some rules, applying rigor. You have to fact-check and try to keep a more or less neutral standpoint” (El Pais in Quandt 2011, 172). User generated content does not necessarily follow these rules.

 

While I do feel that user generated content will continue to change the way journalism operates, I believe that there will always be an important role for the professionals. Apart from anything else, this comes down to logistics. People do not have time to trawl through hundreds of blogs and social media sites to find out what is happening in the world. As Jarvis argues : “there is a flight to quality when it comes to the online experience” (Fitzsimmons 2008). The public needs the official media (which they can be fairly confident is telling the truth) to provide the important news stories. If individuals find a story particularly interesting or relevant, they can then search for more opinions and information in user generated content.

 

Fitzsimmons, C (2008) ‘@Future of Journalism: Jeff Jarvis on 10 questions we should be asking now’ The Guardian UK, 24 June, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/jun/24/futureofjournalismjeffjarv , accessed 11 April 2013.

 

Quandt, T (2011) ‘Understanding a new phenomenon: the significance of participatory journalism’ Chapter 9 in Herminda et al Participatory Journalism, Wiley Blackwell pp155-176.

Climate change’s battle with media ownership

 

The climate change ‘debate’ has been in the media for a while now. But the big question is why is it still being called a ‘debate’? While there is a very valid argument for allowing the public to be able to access a range of different arguments in order to reach a fully informed opinion on public issues, there has been a tendency to report climate change as if there is equal merit to arguments both for and against whether it even exists, when the real question should be ‘how do we deal with it’?

This issue is a prime example of the need for policy regulation regarding media coverage because the media plays a huge role in shaping the public response to climate change. This public response can in turn affect policy development on the actual issue and what we as a nation do about it. As Lyytimäki (2011, 651) indicates the media holds the power to “create awareness of some issues and push others aside or into oblivion.” As such there needs to be regulations requiring the media to represent the issue fairly and not create a ‘false balance’. Ashley (2011) argues “the problem is that on one side of the debate you have 97% of the world’s published climate scientists and the world’s major scientific organisations, and on the other side you have fools.”

But why has this false balance been occurring?

The issue of media ownership seems to play a part. In Australia, media ownership is very concentrated with the two key players being Fairfax Media and News Ltd who together own approximately 90% of Australian newspapers (Carson, 2012). This creates concerns about the public being unable to access a diverse range of opinions but I think it gets a bit worse. Gina Rinehart – Australia’s wealthiest individual who made her fortune in the mining industry – has become Fairfax Media’s largest shareholder (Marks, 2012). She is also a well known climate change sceptic. How can it be possible to present the issue accurately when someone in the minority argument has control over a majority of the media?

Unfortunately, despite the recent reviews into media regulation this concentration of media ownership has not been a focus. Instead the issue was acknowledged and it was simply recommended the Government investigate it (Carson, 2012).

 

Ashley, M (2011) ‘Event horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage’ Media & Democracy – The Conversation, http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642, accessed 27 March 2013.

Carson, A (2012) ‘Finklestein inquiry report cause for ‘cautious optimism” The Conversation.

Lewandowsky, S (2011) ‘Selling climate uncertainty: misinformation and the media’ Media & Democracy – The Conversation, http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638, accessed 28 March 2013.

Lyytimäki, J (2011) ‘Mainstreaming climate policy: the role of media coverage in Finland’ Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol.16, Issue 6, pp649-661.

Marks, K (2012) ‘Gina Rinehart: The billionaire climate change sceptic who wants a slice of Australia’s media’ The Independent, 28 June, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/gina-rinehart-the-billionaire-climate-change-sceptic-who-wants-a-slice-of-australias-media-7893594.html, accessed 28 March 2013.