A snow day in the Internet age

Since the snow started falling, I've just been glad to have electricity. We lost power at our house Sunday for about seven hours, but luckily I was at work at the time. But seven hours is much better than the 2 1/2 days that the power was out a couple weeks ago. I felt very isolated when I was at home and not at work during those days. Luckily I could still use my cell phone, but I couldn't get on the computer. Or take a hot shower. Or even get drinking water after day 2.

I mostly heard about all the accidents that were going on Sunday over the newsroom scanner. My editor had also called me in the morning to ask me to come in early because of the snow. I also checked weather.com and the temperature displayed at the copy place across the street. Traffic cams were also helpful to see how badly the snow was tying up traffic. But when I was trying to decide how difficult it was going to be to go home I didn't rely on secondhand information I was hearing or seeing online. I went outside and walked around a bit to see firsthand how slick the roads were and how much snow had piled up on top of my car during the day. My co-worker's account of coming into work later in the day was more relevant to me than the cars in the ditches that kept coming over the scanner. I spoke with my husband and my neighbor about their experiences driving on the roads leading down to my house.

Even though there is abundant information online, when it comes to weather, I still trust the least technical of information: my personal observations. If I have a choice about leaving the house though, like today, I noticed that I kept an eye on the weather by watching the news on TV and checking the newspaper's Web site online. Based on this information, I decided the farthest I was going to go today was to my mailbox (where there was no mail waiting for me - probably because the mailman was running late in the snow).

Radios and TVs used to be the primary ways that schools would get closure information out. But now parents don't have to wait for a sequence to go by before they can access the information. They can get the information they want when they want it.

Recent technology adoption experience

When I became a UW student I started using Ctrax Media Player. The subscription is free for UW students and the service offers an extensive music library that students can listen to for free. To download the song to a portable device, subscribers pay 89 cents per song. The primary reasons I adopted this technology were (1) I wanted to listen to music that I did not own already and (2) It was free. This would be a content gratification. I wanted to listen to music. There might be some process gratifications as well. The site allows users to look through top picks and featured artists as well as recently added songs. But I usually search for a specific artist and then listen that way. The site also has videos, but I haven't explored that feature yet. Usually I have music on while I'm doing something else.

Ctrax recently updated its site so instead of streaming music directly from the site, the user must now download a ctrax player. The process is quick and simple and while it means one extra step for users, it means that once the player is downloaded you just click on the icon on your desktop and it opens up the ctrax site. Or if you're not connected to the internet you can still play your playlists or burn cds - though I haven't used these features. This allows users more ways to interact with the player - they're targeting a process gratification with the cd burning technologies and building of playlists. The download also helps lock in users to the technology. They've taken the time to download the player so now they might as well use it.

I think Ctrax is also working on some social networking applications. This would be a social gratification.

Ctrax relies on contracts with universities. The diffusion of the technology was reliant on the university contracting with the company. Through contracts, the technology can be diffused fairly rapidly because the university itself does much of the marketing for the device. The cost (free) also increases diffusion rates.

We the Media
Dan Gillmor
Chapter Six: Professional Journalists Join the Conversation

Professional journalists, and in effect their employers, rely on their credibility to do good work. Because the nature of their work requires them to be fair and even-handed, it is not surprising that some newspapers are hesitant to allow journalists to maintain blogs. If a political reporter writes her opinions on a candidate in a blog it would obviously be inappropriate for her to cover that candidate. However, if a political reporter keeps a blog with the latest developments in a candidate's campaign (assuming she isn't only writing about one candidate) such as campaign contributions of fundraising stops, these are details that might not necessarily make it into the paper, but which some people might be interested in knowing about. When I worked at The Spokesman-Review the newspaper had several blogs from writers who did not even work at the newspaper. The site has since expanded and includes blogs by reporters, editors and anyone else who might have something interesting to say. When one of my fellow copy editors went to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to volunteer (she is from Baton Rouge) she kept a blog so those of us in the Northwest could know a little bit about the chaos going on there from someone who we actually knew.

Blogs are an excellent source of news and information. But newspapers have a fear of releasing their editorial control. I think this is one of the reasons why newspapers have been slow to include blogs, discussion boards and other reader-produced content that they don't have the resources to monitor it.

What Dan Gillmor makes clear in his book, however, is that the point of having an interactive media is to allow the readers to contribute, and help monitor, the sites. As we learned with Communities in Cyberspace, users are more than willing to take on responsibilities for user-driven sites. If newspapers included a way to alert editors of inappropriate content with the click of a button, I think users would report the content - probably more efficiently than the newspaper is able to monitor the site. I'm not saying editors can leave interactive features of their Web sites unmaintained. It's important for readers to see that the sites are active with both reader content and editors' oversight.

When bloggers or people on discussion boards get it wrong who is at fault and what should newspapers do about it? This is a real concern for newspapers. Hopefully, the same open process that allowed the content in the first place will allow it to be quickly corrected. However, should newspapers take responsibility for fact-checking assertions made by readers? Even if they are not legally obligated to (which I don't think they are judging from this article I saw today http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/20/internet.libel.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) newspapers may fear that incorrect information from readers could hurt their credibility. Hopefully, the more familiar people become with blogs, the more they will understand that information must be questioned. Also, as we saw with Newsvine, even nonjournalists can earn credibility with readers. Regular contributors and readers of blogs will be able to judge for themselves after several posts whether a person is credible or not. Newspapers may also consider a ranking system like Newsvine uses, in which regular contributors gradually earn more control over the site.

This view of citizen journalism could be a very empowering thing for people. If people feel they have some ownership over the news they are consuming, they will probably be more faithful readers as well, which is good for newspapers in the long run. The BBC experiment iCan, in which citizens were given the tools for local activism, was inspiring in the way it helped to focus a small community on a pressing issue for that community. They found they could uncover the problems without the need for a professional to do it for them.

The Tragedy of the Commons
Garrett Hardin

By failing to regulate the commons, Hardin seems to say, the public will inevitably exhaust its resources. The Internet could be considered a commons. It is largely unregulated and anyone can set up an e-mail address or blog or even their own Web site. In fact, there are so many people online and so much information on the Web that it can sometimes be overwhelming if you don't know exactly what you're loooking for. I have learned about so many Web sites in class and from friends that I would not have even known existed on my own. How are we supposed to keep up with the latest and greatest sites? Will we eventually be bombarded with so much information that we won't be able to keep up with all the sites we want to visit (I think I'm already there). Actually, I don't think this is the problem so much as when certain sites become so enmeshed in the culture that newer sites will have a harder time finding an audience.

This is the real threat to democracy on the Internet. If only a few "channels" have the majority of the audience, then it will be difficult to get out divergent viewpoints. This is not something that I see happening in the near future, but something that could happen with the right conditions. Now, however, there seem to be plenty of outlets for individuals to communicate and plenty of people willing to read their thoughts, which never ceases to amaze me. I think some people have way too much time on their hands.

I think having so much information available to the public online is good for the democratic process. The public can access many public records without leaving their home computer. I'm not sure where Hardin's "tragedy" of the commons fits into eDemocracy. Perhaps if people are seeking to maximize their own benefit they will create sites online that are not useful, and even harmful, to the public good. For instance, a common complaint among e-mail recipients is the amount on unsolicited e-mail, or "spam," that they have in their inbox. Often this spam is advertising porn sites or viagra or something else that society at large may not approve of. Without any regulation, spam could make e-mail nearly useless. Government regulations now require all e-mail mass-mailed messages to include instructions for unsubscribing. There have also been a number of prosecutions of spammers, which have likely made some would-be spammers more wary. E-mail providers also help with spam filters and junk-mail boxes for sorting through spam.

I attended the PSAMA luncheon Wednesday with Karen Crow from Google. It was on "The Changing Media Landscape," and it gave me some ideas about what the future of online news might look like.

Crow emphasized that the PC is losing its hold on the Internet and that mobile devices are the platform of the future. Newspapers should take this to heart and begin to explore ways to communicate across a mobile medium such as cell phones. Advertisers in Japan use a standard code that mobile users can access with a push of the button to download advertisers' games and win points toward purchases. Newspapers could use this technology to provide spots in which mobile users could access the daily newspaper to their phones or other devices. Subscribers would be able to download the news for free and nonsubscribers could pay a fee using their phone, much like they do now at newspaper boxes. Crow explained that unlike in Japan, where mobile technology is more popular, the U.S. does not have mobile standards yet, which would make this technology difficult to use right now.

I became familiar with flickr through some friends of mine who post photos to the site. Flickr is a site where serious photographers, both amateur and professional, share their photos. The site allows registered users to comment on other users' photos and and even to highlight certain parts of a photo and comment specifically on that part as you can see in the example below. Most comments on flickr are encouraging rather than critical. I imagine this is because users must be registered to comment and negative comments could reflect on their own profiles and photos. Also, photographers tend to visit their favorite photographers' sites regularly so there seems to be a real community between photographers. The photo below shows how extensive the comments can be. Also note the boxed part of the photo that shows notes when you roll your mouse over it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hkvam/222443490/in/photostream/


Principles of New Media
From The Language of New Media
Lev Manovich

Differences between old media and new media:

1. Numerical representation: New media object can be described mathematically; new media object is subject to algorithmic manipulation

Terms:
Digitization – converting continuous data into a numerical representation; consists of sampling and quantization
Resolution – frequency of sampling
Discrete data – data occurring in distinct units, i.e. pixels
Quantified – sample assigned numerical value drawn from a defined range

2. Modularity: Because all elements are stored independently, they can be modified at any time.

Examples: HTML, separate objects such as images, media clips are all stored independently so they can be modified.

3. Automation: Human intentionality at least partially removed from creative process

Examples: Low-level automation – Photoshop autocorrect, filters, Artificial Life software
High-level automation (computer must understand meanings embedded in objects generated) – artificial intelligence, computer games

4. Variability: A new media object is not something fixed once and for all, but something that can exist in different, potentially infinite versions.

Media database
Different interfaces can be created from the same data
Information about the user can be used by a computer program to customize automatically the media composition as well as to create elements themselves.
Branching-type interactivity (menu-based)
Hypermedia – multimedia elements connected through hyperlinks
Periodic updates
Scalability – different versions of the same media object can be generated at various sizes or levels of detail
Old media follows logic of a factory – division of labor, level of material organization; new media – values individuality over conformity. Language of text, contents, ads can all be customized. Companies that place ads track movements across the Net, "remembering" which ads you’ve seen, exactly when you saw them, whether you clicked on them, where you were at the time, and the site you have visited just before.

Making a choice involves a moral responsibility. Passing choice to user also passes on responsibility to represent the world and the human condition in it.

5. Transcoding: Translate into another format

When computerization turns media into computer data, its structure now follows the established conventions of the computer’s organization of data. Because new media is created on computers, distributed via computers, and stored and archived on computers, the logic of a computer can be expected to significantly influence the traditional cultural logic of media; that is, we may expect that the computer layer will affect the cultural layer: "The computerization of culture."

Programmability has no historical precedent. Therefore, to understand logic of new media we turn to computer science to find terms, categories and operations that characterize media. From media studies, we move to something that can be called "software studies" – from media theory to software theory.

What new media is not

Discrete representation of media, random access and multimedia were already contained in cinema – these were not unique to digital media.

Digital duplication involves loss of information just as analog duplication does because, in practice, information is compressed and image files are made smaller by deleting some information. Lossy compression is the very foundation of computer culture, at least for now.

The myth of interactivity: Concept is meaningless because all computer media is interactive. Better: Menu-based interactivity, scalability, simulation, image-interface, image-instrument.

Classical art is interactive because it requires user to fill in missing information – "psychological interaction." Modern trend is to externalize mental life and control thinking. The private and individual are translated into the public and become regulated. Before we would look at an image and mentally follow our own private associations to other images. Now interactive computer media asks us instead to click on an image in order to go to another image. We are asked to follow pre-programmed, objectively existing associations.



Thoughts on other readings:

I've noticed that the topics I talk about online are often different than the topics I talk to the same person about in person. I can usually get more bare-bones information from someone online in chat or e-mail, but if I want details about something it's usually better to talk in person. The same is true with conflict resolution. It's difficult to resolve a conflict if you're only e-mailing back and forth. At the newspaper where I work, for example, I've noticed that when someone sends in an e-mail angry about something in the paper, it's usually counterproductive to send and e-mail back. Much more effective (and usually efficient) is to call the person and hear and respond to concerns they may have.

Currently, the only online communities I belong to contain people I met outside of the Net. When I was in middle school, however, I had several "key pals" who I met in what I guess must have been a usenet group. The relationships were short-lived, though, and I no longer remember much of anything about who they were. I know a lot of people form strong relationships online (a college roommate of mine would stay up most of the night chatting with a guy online), but I haven't made any meaningful relationships online. I do think that online communities are great for keeping in touch with people I already know. I like checking my friends' myspace pages occasionally to see what they've been up to. I also like photo-sharing Web sites that have allowed me to see friends' new babies who live far away.

I think one of the factors affecting the effectiveness of online communities is that most communications are asynchronous. Even where synchronous communication is possible, most people are not online and available to talk at the same time so there is usually some lag time with responses. For that reason, communications can sometimes be drawn out and very rarely go into much depth on one idea. Also, while online communities are a great way to brainstorm and collect ideas, it's very difficult to synthesize ideas online unless you have one person doing the synthesizing. In the Jervay Place example in Communities in Cyberspace the community members were able to begin a search for low-income housing information online, but their eventual design was created with the help of architectural firms in person.