ASSMT 1: 3.1 Notes on News Media

The ilecture this week by Mingnon Hardlow really opened my eyes to the role news media plays in a democracy. Hardlow states that the four estates that make up a democracy are the Judiciary, the Government, the Executive Government and Free Press who plays a watchdog function and keeps the general public informed (Harlow 2011).

With such an important role in society, I started to wonder about the credibility of news sources. It has long been known that magazines pay people for interviews and report gossip and rumor - often referred to as tabloids but does this cross over into the world of news? Especially online news, where anyone with an internet connection can become a reporter, quickly and easily uploading video, photos, sounds and text at any given time.  Who controls it? Who reads it? And does anyone believe it?

The power and control of traditional news sources was discussed by Harper in his article Journalism in the digital age where he notes that “many online publications depend on major brand names as the primary sources of information” (Harper 2003) inferring that while we may be able access news in more places than ever, it is likely that what we are reading online comes from the traditional media sources. This certainly rings true for me. I tend to read the smh online rather than blog posts and if news is ever reported by friend on facebook I will usually go to traditional news sites to validate it or seek further information.

Harper also outlined the power of editors in the news world who act as gatekeepers – determining which stories are newsworthy enough for publish, and therefore controlling the issues that are thought about and discussed by the general public. Prior to the internet there were not many alternative ways to find out about news stories not presented in the press and although online news is still dominated by traditional media there are alternatives. For example twitter allows people to follow multiple new sites, celebrities and friends from all over the world – a news item published in one country can circulate via social media and become public knowledge before publishing by traditional sources as was the case of the Occupy Wall Street protests (Gruen Planet: Episode 6  2011).

Then comes the issue of money. As much as free press is good for a Democracy it is also a business so who pays for online newspapers? Harlow advised that traditionally classified advertising paid for newspapers. Upon flicking through the October 28 edition of the Daily telegraph I found nothing more that 5 pages of classifieds - 3 of which were dedicated to jobs, cars, real estate and obituaries and the other 2 solely decided to "personals" (Classifieds  2011) . Classifieds in newspapers it seems are no longer popular, and with the benefits of online sites such as my career and eBay its not hard to see why,  although there were also sections that mixed journalism with commercial products such as the card guide. 


Harlow also stated that some online news sites are part of larger conglomerates that also own online classified sections with the online newspaper works as branding for their other products (Harlow 2011). This is certainly the case with the new site for The West Australian who belongs to a group of companies owned by 7 west media. 7 west media also own channel 7 and Yahoo 7 (The West Australian  2011)and their products, services and media entertainment area advertised heavily on the site. A look at three other news sites found:

·      Crikey.com uses a pay wall model to make money from their news content. While some stories are published on the site viewers need to subscribe to unlock access to even better ones (so they say) at a cost of $185 per year. Subscribers then get the extra privilege of providing content if they wish. (Subscriber Help  2011).

·      Perth Indi Media wholly operates on citizen journalism but stories added to these site still go through a gatekeeper who monitors them against the sites criteria. This site runs off donations and covers local community issues (About Indymedia Australia  2011).

·      Finally the Huffington Post website is owned by a big corporation AOL and gets its content from anywhere its free – liking to the blog sites of others and combining the days blogs into one new site. This site also involves readers by having them comment and rate stories. This site is huge and has multiple strands not just in news but also entertainment and sport etc. AOL sells adverting on the Huffington post site. (The Huffington Post  2011)

SO the main points to remember this week are that:

·      Online news media raises challenges the profitability of news and new ways to raise revenue are being trialed

·      Online news sites are often another branch traditional news media companies which are trusted by many users

·      Online news sites can target niche markets and source news for free from citizen journalists and bloggers

·      Online news allows Journalists to link their reports to other news reports and source documents

·      Online news allows people to research news reports therefore ethical journalism is important

·      Gatekeepers still exist in the online environment (see gatekeepers blog entry for further info) controlling and monitoring the stories and comments uploaded

 About Indymedia Australia. 2011. http://www.indymedia.org.au/about (accessed 7/11/11).

Classifieds. 2011. The Daily Telegraph, 119 - 124  (accessed 7/11/11)
Gruen Planet: Episode 6. 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/gruenplanet/pages/s3354190.htm (accessed 8/11/11).

Harlow, M. 2011. Inform me! News Media. Week 8. http://dbs.ilectures.curtin.edu.au/lectopia/lectopia.lasso?-MaxRecords=50&-SkipRecords=0&-Op=bw&ut=2908&CallbackID=928d2167f0cc56656c84409b4f366e45&usr=15055147 (accessed 8/11/11).

Harper, C. 2003. Journalism in a Digital Age. Democracy and new media: 271-280. lms.curtin.edu.au/@@59FE5910C5E0F0C6A9542F9A2E4F0BF9/courses/1/312160-Vice-Chancello-935083018/db/_2975043_1/embedded/Christopher%20Harper.pdf (accessed 7/11/11).

  The Huffington Post. 2011. http://advertising.aol.com/brands/huffington-post (accessed 8/11/11).

  Subscriber Help. 2011. http://www.crikey.com.au/about/subscriber-help/#nuts1 (accessed 8/11/11).

  The West Australian. 2011. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/ (accessed 7/11/11).

ASSMT 1: 2.5 Notes on games, ARGs and digital commons

The topic of Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) was an interesting one this week that I think fits well with my remediation project and essay. Although I have chosen to remediate and write an essay about the sub plot of a television series - the way in which the characters story intertwines with real life scenarios is similar to the way in which ARGs are operate.

Örnebring states: "Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) are a form of internet-based mystery game in which participants are immersed in a fictional world and engage in collective problem-solving" (Örnebring 2007 p. 445).

And they work by:

  "Events and things mentioned in the episodes of the TV series itself will also provide clues. Bit by bit, these clues form a separate narrative set in the fictional world" (Örnebring 2007 p. 446).

In the TV show Gavin and Stacey - Nessa's back story is never fully told and she remains somewhat of a mystery. A series of clues are dropped by Nessa in her stories that reflect upon past conquests involving famous people from the real world. If viewers choose to investigate these clues they will find that these stories not only reference real life people but also real life scenarios that have been reported in the press. Nessa turns out to be someone that has escaped the limelight while being involved in a great deal of scandal.

Therefore the TV show follows a similar line to ARGs in that:

• A mystery is created
• Clues are given
• Clues can be investigated by audiences
• Clues link to real world people and scenarios through press reports

My remediation project sets out to join these clues together through a blog that presents Nessa as if she is a real life person and further the idea that the stories are true. Unlike a game there is no puzzle solving winning at the end, it is merely a site for investigating clues and filling in the back story - a kind of virtual reality blog based on a virtual reality storyline in a TV show.

In this regard my blog could be seen as an example cultural labor  described by Fiske and quoted by  Örnebring as " ‘filling in the syntagmatic gaps in the original narrative’ (Örnebring 2007 p. 451 quoting Fiske, 1992). In other words the blog pieces together a back story that enriches the characters in TV show. Örnebring believes that this type of culture labor supports marketing for television shows (as does other fan created content) - as it stays within the storyline and concept of the show rather than changing it, and disseminates to a wider audience

This same idea was covered in our second reading about Digital Commons - especially in the sections about mods which are fan produced modifications for games. The point was made here too that modders stick to the boundaries of the originating text source as per the following quote:

"most mods are thematically conservative, undertaken by technically accomplished fans who love a particular game and want more of it – more weapons and monstrous opponents for shooters, different campaigns and battles for war games – in variants that don’t stray far from the spirit of the original" (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007).

Both readings link fan culture, virtual reality and media institutions all of which relate to my remediation project. As the blog is aimed at fans and new watchers of the show Gavin and Stacey -  this topic would be good to cover in my essay.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Örnebring, H. 2007. Alternate reality gaming and convergence culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies 10: 445 - 462. Sage Publications. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/10/4/445 (accessed 20/10/11).

ASSMNT 1 2.3: Audience and Context of Remediation Project

I have been thinking about this weeks readings Pop Cosmopolitanism: Mapping Cultural Flows in an Age of Media Convergence, Fans bloggers and gamers: exploring participatory culture and Indigenous, ethnic and cultural articulations of new media in terms of my remediation project. The TV series Gavin and Stacey was created in the UK for a UK audience so what is it about the show that had drawn me – an Australian, to the show? Who will my remediation project be aimed at? And are my interpretations of the shows themes, when viewed in the Australian context different from the intentions of the original producers?

Why am I drawn to the show?

In the terms of Jenkins – I guess you could say I was originally introduced to the show by a “Grassroots intermediatory” (Jenkins 2006)

 – My husband who was born and raised in Wales (which is where part of the show Gavin and Stacey is set) and now lives in Australia. He not only keeps up to date with the goings of friends and family at home, but also likes to keep up to date with music, TV shows and news. Gavin and Stacey was a hit in Wales and box sets promptly posted over to us upon release in the UK.

One of the themes of the show is based on the idiosyncrasies of different cultures – that being of the English and the Welsh or to be more precise of Barry in South Wales and Essex in England. I can in some ways relate to the humor based on these idiosyncrasies as I compare my own experiences of living in Wales, being married to a Welsh man and becoming part of a Welsh family and as such also recognize the character traits and stereotypes presented. This would then make me part of what Srinivasan describes as an “imagined community” (Srinivasan 2006) made up of not only U.K. viewers who inherently understand the humor, but also of other cultural outsiders who have joined families from these two parts of the world, and so too can relate the humor based on cultural difference.

I initially chose to remediate Nessa’s storyline due to time constraints but after this weeks topic I think it could also be because I understand the character. She is an over exaggerated welsh stereotype that I can recognize more easily than other stereotypes presented in the show such as Smithy from Essex. I have learnt about Smithy’s stereotype through others telling me about it but can see elements of Nessa’s persona in people that I have met or worked with in the past and as such feel I am better equipped to retell her story than other characters in the show. Nessa also in some ways appeals to my sense of “Pop Cosmopolitanism” (Jenkins 2006)

  - My ties to Wales now see me wanting to keep up with the current affairs of the country, and a lot of Nessa’s stories tie into current day events. Nessas stories are littered with UK pop culture references and to piece them together is something like a treasure hunt.

Who will my remediation project be aimed at?

As an understanding of Nessas stores and humor comes from an understanding of UK popular culture and current media events  - my remediation project will be aimed at those who are not up to speed on such things. Using blog to recreate Nessas little black book (a list of all the people Nessa claims to have had a relationship with throughout the show) allows me to link the real life media stories to the stories Nessa tells. In other words when she claims to have slept with John Prescott I can hyperlink his name to real life press articles about John Prescott – linking the story to the pop culture reference.

This media format also works within the current day context of viewing the show. Gavin and Stacey is no longer being produced – so if one was to watch the show today the pop culture references will all be old, and possibly forgotten even by those residing in the UK – they will be old news so to speak. Therefore the little black book will not only inform those who were out of the loop in the first place, but will refresh the memories of those who are watching or re-watching the series again – appealing to my entire “imagined community” (Srinivasan 2006).

Does this change of context change the meaning?

Having never met the writers and producers of the show I cannot say what the original intention of this part of the story line was, but in creating an online hyperlinked little black book I will not be changing it. I will merely be changing the way in which the story is presented. Time itself has changed the context of this storyline, but the recreation of it in an online media form will bring it back closer to its original time, preserving rather than altering the meaning.

 Jenkins, H. 2006. Pop Cosmopolitanism: Mapping Cultural Flows in an Age of Media Convergence, Fans bloggers and gamers: exploring participatory culture: New York University Press.

Srinivasan, R. 2006. Indigenous, ethnic and cultural articulations of new media. International Journal of Cultural Studies 9: 497. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/9/4/497 (accessed 15/10/11).

ASSMT 1: 2.2 Notes on Laws that strangle creativity (Lessig 2007) and Creative Commons (CC)

Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity | Video on TED.com

“We can't make our kids passive again, we can only make them pirates . . . is that good?” (Lessig 2007)

 

In this presentation Lessig describes the 20th century as a time where creativity was displaced. Historically our society was based on a "Read Write" culture but in the 20th Century we evolved into a  "Read Only" culture - a culture where we consumed media content but do not participate in the creation of it. (Lessig 2007)

In the 21st century we see this Read Only culture challenged by new media which allows for a return of the Read Write culture or in the terms of Jenkins a "Participatory culture" where we not only consume media but we also create it. We not only "Read" but we also "Write" and we do so by creating user generated content and distributing it through social networking sites such as YouTube. (Lessig 2007)

As Lessig points out, Copyright law blanket covers all unauthorized use of content as criminal and as such dampens the creativity of a generation who creates art from snippets of other peoples content (such as creating vids, mashups or remix). While he acknowledges that copyright law has its place it should be changed to allow for this form of expression and suggests Creative Commons as a pathway towards decriminalization. (Lessig 2007)

In Australia the creator of a work is the copyright owner, (unless there is a signed contractual agreement that states otherwise) - copyright is not something that is applied for, but is something that exists at the time of creation (Ownership of copyright  2006). As such works cannot be copied, reproduced or reused without the creators permission.

There is a Fair Dealings clause that allows people to use snippets of copyrighted material for “research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, or professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney”(Fair Dealing  2008) but this is a legal defense that can be used if sued, it is not a legal right to prevent one from being sued (dangerousnerd 2007).

As Collins states in his article – fair use can be manipulated by large companies who use their media presence and financial advantage to send a message to the general public about sampling their products (Collins 2008). They do so by suing samplers who then need to fork out money to defend themselves under the terms of “fair use”. The large sums media companies sue for put fear into samplers – they can either take down content before it goes to court, or face the possibility of loosing great sums of money in the court system.

Creative Commons on the other hand takes the guess work out of using other peoples content as allows the creator of material to stipulate whether or not it is OK for people to copy, sample, re-use or reproduce a work. It succeeds where fair use fails as it clearly communicates the terms of which the works can be used. There are 6 standard licences, which vary in restrictions. The most relaxed licences allow people reuse, alter and distribute works for both private and commercial purposes while the most restrictive allows only for the sharing of a work. All licences stipulate that the originating creator must be acknowledged (About the Licenses). A comprehensive list can be found on the creative commons website.

Overall I believe creative commons to be a good thing but it is a voluntary system that applies only to those who are willing to share. It does not address the issues of media companies hording content or their manipulation of the legal system to prevent creative re-use of it. Therefore participation by media institutions seem unlikely due the the economic benefit they receive from their current business model.

Although the TV show I am going to remediate (Gavin and Stacey) does not fall under creative commons licensing I should be able to avoid infringing copyright due to fair use. Dangerounerd states in their YouTube video “You cant copyright an idea…you can only copyright the form an idea takes”(dangerousnerd 2007) therefore I am free to remediate the storyline. I can also use small snippets of dialog from the show and change their form from spoken word to written text so long as I reference the source (as you would when writing an essay). Overall I am creating the remediation for educational purposes, which falls within the guidelines of the Fair dealing exceptions of Australian copyright law. If Baby Cow productions (owners of Gavin and Stacey) do try to sue me I should have grounds to win  - so long as I can afford the legal fees in the first place!

About the Licenses. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (accessed 9/10/11).

Collins, S. 2008. Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal 11 (6). http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_43148_1%26url%3d (accessed 28/9/11).

 dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).

Fair Dealing. 2008. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05: 6. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 28/9/11

Lessig, L. 2007. Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity. TED.

Ownership of copyright. 2006. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G58. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 9/10/11).