Attention and commons

Like my previous blogs, I’ve struggled to finish typing sentences without being distracted by Facebook notifications or interesting YouTube videos. I get why some people deliberately cut themselves off the internet while doing an assignment but I fear my attention span is already too far gone after being exposed to the beauty that is the internet. This, including the readings, made me realise that social media and other websites have sought for the territory of our attention (Goldhaber 1997). Therefore through the internet, we have divided our attention with the different functions given to us by new media technologies.

First let’s look at attention. Due to the new media and publishing technologies, the world has entered an age of information overload. In fact we have “exceeded the capacity of information that we can absorb and retain” (Boyd 2010). If I wanted to learn about a particular event or skill through a ‘how to’ tutorial then I would simply type the keywords on Google and attain that information within seconds. However this information may not be retained for the long term and then we would have to search for the same thing again. This suggests that the internet has impaired our data retention and attention spans. Since we can only do so much with our time, businesses now perceive attention as a scarce resource (Goldhaber 1997).

The second concept in the readings studies commons. The commons allows people to share information and publish content in a public space. The internet provides the medium for the commons. It allows people to contribute their ideas in a much larger online community (Walljasper 2011). Those viewing the information could either consume the knowledge or add to the data that was published. Furthermore, the amount of collaborations that the internet allows gives way to new forms of publishing. Perhaps the greatest part of the internet is being able to publish and consume without any restrictions to the user. While I do believe that access to information should be available for everyone, where does the internet draw the line? News articles in the internet are free and peer to peer sharing is allowing artistic content to be free to the public. Should all information be common or should some become private? Regardless of the answer, more people are finding ways to share private information to the public, thanks to the internet.      

Through the study of attention, we can discover the nature of commons and the publics that use them.  As our attention spans have lessened, we have greater demands from the commons to have information that is easily absorbed. Due to the various information offered by the internet public knowledge and experiences become vastly different. Information is important to the public but I think that the problem with contemporary commons is that the public using the internet is becoming less engaged with information as it is so easily accessible.

References

Boyd, S. (2010). The False Question Of Attention Economics. [online] Stowe Boyd. Available at: http://stoweboyd.com/post/764818419/the-false-question-of-attention-economics [Accessed 30 Aug. 2014].

Goldhaber, M. (1997). Feature. [online] Archive.wired.com. Available at: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.12/es_attention.html [Accessed 30 Aug. 2014].

Walljasper, J. (2011). The Commons Moment is Now. [online] Common Dreams. Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2011/01/24/commons-moment-now [Accessed 30 Aug. 2014].

Read More

Archive Fever

The first image that I imagine when confronted with the idea of archives is that of a room stacked with boxes containing folders of numerous files. I usually allude to evidence rooms in police precincts as they contain vast amounts of information to be accessed later by the detective. Archives are mediums that store data that could be useful in the future. In this sense our memories of events can count as archives. However as media rapidly evolves into the digital age, archives are becoming more digital. Whether we are using social media, emails, blogs, YouTube and a variety of other websites we are leaving more traces of our personal lives online, “we are miniarchivists ourselves in this information society” (Parikka 2013).

by: Hgrobe <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AWI-core-archive_hg.jpg#filelinks>

Derrida argues that those who can create archives have the ability to determine the culture within the society. He also presents this idea of ‘Archive Fever’ which is the “to have a compulsive, repetitive, and nostalgic desire for the archive, an irrepressible desire to return to the origin, a homesickness, a nostalgia for the return to the most archaic place of absolute commencement” (Derrida 1996 p.91). Put more simply, we have a human tendency to record our experiences and memories into archives because we deemed a certain event in our lives poignant.

Archive fever has certainly become more prominent in the digital age as different forms of digital publishing are forcing society to record everything. And when I mean everything, I mean everything. Twitter for example has become a site, where people would openly express their thoughts, activities, photographs almost every minute. This information overload and this desperate need to be remembered and to remember is part of the reasons why I try to refrain from using Twitter as much as possible. Ogle (2010) alludes to this change in attitude with archiving, that “if it’s not recent, it’s not important”.  A problem with websites like twitter, where real-time experiences are captured every minute and made permanent in the internet, could be the vast amount of information stored in the web.  As our personal archives become richer, a majority of it is neglected as it becomes harder to look for in our internet histories.

However this does not mean that archive fever should be treated as an illness. Archiving allows us to digitally enhance our lives. Facebook allows us to stores photos and tags can be used to easily search for related content. The internet has allowed us to store more information than ever before and has made our capabilities to remember experiences in our lifetimes much easier to access. As Derrida mentioned “there would indeed be no archive desire without the radical finitude, without the possibility of forgetfulness” (Enszer 2008). We archive because it is our means to stay connected to society and the world.

References

Derrida, J. and Prenowitz, E. (1996). Archive fever. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Enszer, J. (2008). Julie R. Enszer: Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression by Jacques Derrida. [online] Julierenszer.blogspot.com.au. Available at: http://julierenszer.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/archive-fever-freudian-impression-by.html [Accessed 25 Aug. 2014].

Ogle, M. (2010). Archive Fever: a love letter to the post real-time web. [online] Mattogle.com. Available at: http://mattogle.com/archivefever/[Accessed 25 Aug. 2014].

Parikka, Jussi (2013) ‘Archival Media Theory: An Introduction to Wolfgang Ernst’s Media Archaeology’ in Ernst, Wolfgang Digital Memory and the Archive Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 1-22

Read More

Assembling Publishing Publics

This week’s readings focused on the concept of Actor Network Theory (ANT) which was developed by Michael Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. To be honest, this was a theory that was very difficult to learn and having spent a few hours reading and rereading, I think I might just have the gist of it.

Previous concepts that have tried to conceptualise how networks are formed have usually employed narrow focus on either technological or social factors. The problem with these theories is that they don’t fully capture the nature of publishing (Deluki 2009). Social determinism can lead to technological changes and technological determinism can create social changes. Therefore ANT suggests that all actors/actants (whether human, non-human, technology) have an equal role in the function of a network and should be conceptualised in the same means (Wikipedia 2014). This is what is known as a principle of generalised symmetry.

What really helped me grasp this concept is the example that Goguen (2003) provided:  

“Newton did not really act alone in creating the theory of gravitation: he needed observational data from the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, he needed publication support from the Royal Society and its members (most especially Edmund Halley), he needed the geometry of Euclid, the astronomy of Kepler, the mechanics of Galileo, the rooms, lab, food, etc.”

While we typically associate the theory of gravitation with Newton, ANT suggests that other actors have as much to do with the discovery as Newton himself.  Each actant is a nodal point where if it is excluded from the network, the network will fail (Banks 2011). From this, we can determine how networks are formed and what actors hold it together.

In relation to publishing, both social and technological factors affect the nature of this network. Let’s use YouTube videos as an example of a publishing network. In order for videos to be recorded , commented and published you need the technological components like, a camera, a comment page, hyperlinks, and a computer (with internet access) to view the published video. However, for this network to function, you need social actors that drive the video like the vlogger, advertisers and the audience (that comment, share and like the video). ANT suggests that each actor plays an equal role in making this network successful, but this is where I disagree.

The flaw of this theory is that it does not account for the different power relations between each actor in the process (Banks 2011). While the audiences can help determine the value and the popularity of the video through likes and views, the publisher/vlogger has ultimate control over the content. Without the existence of the internet to view the video then the network will fail. What is put in the front page of YouTube is technologically determined through algorithms based on “watch time” (Jarboe 2011) and who you’re subscribed to. However, without the people utilising these machines, the network ceases to exist, therefore human actors play a much more powerful role in determining the nature of the network. This puts into question whether technological components should even be assigned agency into the network.

I am not saying that technical and social actors cannot coexist in the publishing network but disregarding power, class, culture imbalances can be problematic for the theory. I will therefore be very cautious about applying ANT into conceptualising publics and publishing, not until I get a much deeper understanding of the subject.

References

Banks, D. (2011). A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory » Cyborgology. [online] Thesocietypages.org. Available at: http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory/ [Accessed 18 Aug. 2014].

Goguen, J. (2003). CSE 275: Chapter 6. [online] Cseweb.ucsd.edu. Available at: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/courses/275/s6.html [Accessed 18 Aug. 2014].

Jarboe, G. (2012). YouTube Algorithm Change: 'Time Watched' Key to Higher Video Search Rankings. [online] Search Engine Watch. Available at: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2218696/YouTube-Algorithm-Change-Time-Watched-Key-to-Higher-Video-Search-Rankings [Accessed 18 Aug. 2014].

Wikipedia, (n.d.). Actor–network theory. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-network_theory [Accessed 18 Aug. 2014].

Read More

Adapting to New Modes of Publishing: Paywalls

Thanks to the proliferation of publishing technologies and the rise of the digital age, people are given the opportunity to consume and publish a vast amount of information. As new technologies for publishing are created, new challenges become present with different businesses. The days of charging for a physical copy of a newspaper are coming to an end. Free information that is published online is challenging how print journalism makes its revenue.  Based on the readings, I reflect on print media's implementation of new business models, specifically the paywall. Is it effective? Can it save the future for journalists and advance the future of publishing?

Due to the decrease of advertising revenues, companies like the The New York Times, have had to approach an alternative method, the paywall. Paywalls are the barriers to exclusive content and can only be accessed by users who have paid the subscription fee. The New York Times, for one, offers these subscriptions for the benefit of unlimited access to articles and blog posts as well as extra features. The paywall itself may seem like an appropriate business model as people are willing to purchase subscriptions to view more content. In fact Doctor (2013) addresses the idea that getting exclusive content, makes people feel important and lets publishers know that audiences care. This changes how publishing is formatted. Articles and extra features must be worth buying, engaging and should differentiate from other content that is free (Doctor 2013).  

Paywalls can be inconvenient for casual readers

The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, does provide a good counter argument. Paywalls are not a step forward for publishing as print journalism is merely turning its back from its readers and that digital advertising still holds promise (Busfield 2010). I strongly agree with this opinion on paywalls. Because new publishing techniques have been created, this gives us the massive opportunity to experiment and progress through shared content, which has been successfully exploited by social media (twitter, Facebook). Simply using a subscription method to access print publications is merely trying to hold on to past publishing technologies but it prevents journalism from accomplishing its main function, to inform masses in order to achieve a sustainable democracy. If paywalls are implemented, it can possibly limit the number of people that can access information and opinions, alienate casual readers, and may even bring about greater decline in revenue for the company. The New York Times holds great reputation, paywalls may not be as effective on smaller startup publications. It’s the company’s circumstance and luck that made this business model successful (Kozlowski 2014).

I’m not saying that digital advertising is the absolute profit-making machine that the print media should implement either. Native advertising has become a rising trend within these companies, where advertisements would be disguised as articles for the publication (Hallett 2013). Advertising can potentially get in the way of reporting impartial journalism. Other websites also stick to explicitly naming their sponsors. I don’t have a determined answer for what will solve the revenue crisis of print publishing, but I can conclude that new techniques for publishing gives new opportunities to explore social and commercial patterns. Due to the variations of business models brought about by new publishing techniques and processes, it has become clear that each company should seek to innovate and experiment methods of adapting to the digital age of publishing.

 References

Busfield, S. (2010). Guardian editor hits back at paywalls. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jan/25/guardian-editor-paywalls [Accessed 11 Aug. 2014].

Coscarelli, J. (2012). NY Times Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers. [online] Daily Intelligencer. Available at: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/07/new-york-times-supported-by-readers-not-advertisers.html [Accessed 11 Aug. 2014].

Doctor, K. (2014). The newsonomics of The New York Times’ Paywalls 2.0. [online] Nieman Journalism Lab. Available at: http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/the-newsonomics-of-the-new-york-times-paywalls-2-0/ [Accessed 11 Aug. 2014].

Hallett, T. (2013). What is native advertising anyway?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network-outbrain-partner-zone/native-advertising-quality-scalability [Accessed 11 Aug. 2014].

Kozlowski, M. (2014). Why the Vast Majority of Newspaper Paywalls Will Fail. [online] Goodereader.com. Available at: http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/why-the-vast-majority-of-newspaper-paywalls-will-fail [Accessed 11 Aug. 2014].

Image:

CC BY-SA HonestReporting.com, flickr/tristanf <https://flic.kr/p/nFCgZp>

Read More

Publishing: Consequences

Printing and its processes have definitely changed since the 17th century. Gutenberg’s printing process included compositors that would type completely by hand. This slow and very tedious task was replaced by new methods of printing. Moreover, with the development of the computers and the internet, the digital age has significantly changed the methods of printing and creating an impact socially.

In the readings, Brannon (2007) put up a great question: “Would knowledge advance more rapidly, or less so, when texts could be quickly designed, reproduced, disseminated, and updated?” (p. 359)

In my opinion, knowledge will advance. As printing becomes more efficient, we are gaining information from a variety of sources and we are no longer limited by print as a medium of publishing, rather we are given, audio, video and photos to better express complex concepts. YouTube for example has saved me in so many occasions, by giving me access to tutorial videos, from basic tasks to computer troubleshooting ones.  Texts can be changed or customised at any time, depending on the audience, but also everything is easier to access (links), regardless of physical geography in the virtual world

While I do see the benefits of new printing technologies, I also acknowledge the concerns that come with printing in the digital age. Because there is so much information and the availability of the variety of opinions in modern publications, passively absorbing whatever information is on the internet can be dangerous. In the digital age we are forced to examine the trustworthiness of information and therefore we become more critical of the variety of texts that we have been given. For example, just because information is written in Wikipedia, it does not mean that all information should be used as concrete proof.

Digital age of publishing

Another small point I got from the readings was that the proliferation of content has forced us to skim through stories or passively read. We are apparently only alert for 15 seconds in a story (Haile 2014), and I fully agree with it. There have been so many stories in the SMH where I have only read the lead line. However to this day I still prefer having a physical copy of a book to read rather than an ebook. I think physically holding a copy of published content and turning the pages is part of the experience of reading a book, while there is just something about ebooks that feels impersonal and unreal.  

But that’s just my opinion, would a generation that was purely exposed to digital publications think differently about online content?

References

Brannon, Barbara A. (2007) ‘The Laser Printer as an Agent of Change’ in Baron, Sabrina et al., (eds.) Agent of Change: Print Culture Studies after Elizabeth L. Eisenstein Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press: 353-364

Lehrer, Jonah (2010) ‘The Future of Reading’, Wired, September 8, <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/the-future-of-reading-2>

 Haile, Tony (2014) ‘What you think you know about the web is wrong’, Time.com, March 9, <http://time.com/12933/what-you-think-you-know-about-the-web-is-wrong/>

Image:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/4/23/1335175243042/publishing-005.jpg

Read More