I struggled quite a bit this week on what to post on my blog because there seems to be lots of interesting topics to talk about, research on, and offer up a discuss that should elicit further knowledge or research. It was hard to settle on something. But I have decided to look at Copyright laws from a rather lighter side hoping that it would be written in a simplified form by striping the heavy legal language and jargons and such as will bring further knowledge to myself and my class.
So, I have chosen a topic which is difficult and has been making the rounds on the tables of negotiators of global treaties and conventions. I thought a little bit of history might provide some better context.
Copyright has a history dating back to the 15th century. In 1662 a licensing act was established to register licensed books. Its intent was to regulate books and monitor their writings (UK). That act lasted up until 1681 when it was repealed [1]. In 1710, the Statute of Anne was enacted which gave considerable powers to copyright holders. An infringer was fined one 'peny' “for every sheet which shall be found in his, her, or their Custody, either Printed or Printing, Published.”[2] This, in essence made copyright a crime and a granted a fixed term of 14 years to owners of copyrighted works, 120 years for works that were already created prior to this law.
In 1886, the International Copyright Act also known as the Berne Convention [3] was instituted. This was an improvement and a codification of existing copyright laws and the beginning of international treaties seeking signatories from various countries. The plethora of protection covered by the Berne convention ranged from cinematographic works, works of architecture, to dramatic and musical works, and broadcasting rights. While the convention was initially ratified by these two countries, it was conceived for a global ascension of countries. Currently, there are a total of 164 countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention. Eight countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdon) were part of the initial signatories on December 5, 1887. Canada (April 10, 1928) and the United States (March 1, 1989) came in much later [4].
The Canadian Copyright Act, current to January 25, 2010 defines copyright, “in relation to a work, [as] the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof...”[5]. It covers literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works; computer programs, and broadcast.
Civil society organizations such as the EFF[6], educations bodies[7] and certain individuals[8] claim these laws are limiting, restrict innovation and access, and benefits only certain persons other than the actual rights holders. Consumer International claims copyright is not only a business issue but also a consumer issue[9]. Some of these interventions have questioned existing copyright laws resulting in alternatives to copyright and concessions on some of these provisions. Some outcomes include initiatives such as creative commons [10], access to knowledge[11], and limitations and exceptions provisions for the scholarly (education), visually impaired and archivist. The summary of this movement, is that copyright is restrictive and reduces access to knowledge works and materials. And that there should be certain exceptions and limitations to some works for the purposes of education, research, archiving and preservation, and for visually impaired persons.
The Canadian copyright law allows for certain fair dealings provisions. Section 29 of the Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42) allows for use of copyrighted materials in research and private study, criticisms and review purposes, and for news reporting.
Perhaps, of more importance to us in class, is the application of this to technology. Copyright infringements are linked to the 'unlawful' hosting of copyrighted materials online. The Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an extension of the US copyright law to the digital/online space. This act has a provision that enforces a “notice take down” (NTD) clause which requires that infringing content on any given website must be taken down as soon as the Internet service provider has been informed of such content. Google[12] and creative commons[13] comply with the DMCA (and the NTD clause). An interesting project that has arisen from this is the Chilling Effects Clearing House[14] which maintains a database of all notice take downs, while at the same time ensuring the fairness of the infringement process. A key component of the DMCA is the DRM clause which controls access to digital copyrighted works and also criminalizes circumventions of these works. The Open Rights Groups (ORG) thinks this is an infringements of their rights and speaks out against this (see, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kijON_XODUk).
However, there are claims that DRMs may not be the most appropriate means of protecting copyright. In fact, the ORG claims victory over its consistent campaign against DRM when Apple and Amazon decided to drop their restrictions[15].
So, I will tie this all together. Copyright has been an age old discussion that initially protected arts and literary works but is currently extended to the Internet, to music, culture, and digital products. An international organization such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) currently manages and hosts negotiations around global treaties and conventions on intellectual property and copyright which countries such as Canada and the US are signatories to. These countries have existing fair use provisions but they are not completely responsive to certain needs. Consumer and citizen organizations have been interested in the fairness of such legal provisions and it is important that such fairness extends to education, visually impaired persons and for the purposes or archiving. The push continues to extend limitations and exceptions to copyrighted works in these areas and WIPO[16] is still coordinating these global debates.
-----------------
[1] http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-history/c-history-1662.htm
[2] http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne2.html
[3] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html
[4] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?treaty_id=15
[5] http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3
[6] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2004/11/wipo-eff-statement-limitations-and-exceptions [7] http://a2knetwork.org/about, aca2k is an academic research body probing the relationship between copyright and access to knowledge. It is a project funded by the Canadian IDRC.
[8] http://www.cptech.org/a2k/
[9] http://a2knetwork.org/about
[10] http://creativecommons.org/
[11] http://www.cptech.org/a2k/
[12] http://www.google.com/dmca.html
[13http://creativecommons.org/dmca
[14] http://www.chillingeffects.org/
[15] http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/successes/drm
[16] http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/limitations/index.html
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Literacy as defined by new media
Media literacy encompasses many aspects yet it is defined by two words that do not, at face value, quite do justice to its real meaning. The media has existed for quite some time and perhaps a description of the history of media might do justice to this blog post. I will however spare the reader the pain. Nevertheless, I will dwell quite a bit on the subject of literacy postulating that a better understanding of the word may give us certain glimpses into understanding the media and hopeful the term “media literacy.”
The definition of literacy resonated with me during Dr. Denis Hlynka's seminar on media literacy. Literacy is defined as the ability to read and write or the ability to encode and decode. It is the latter for which I am most concerned. For the ability to read and write may not be sufficient enough to represent the word literacy. I may write with a great degree of ambiguity, lack of understanding, or scribbles which may make no sense but may be written in standard roman or latin text and arabic numerals. I have written, in 'known' characters, therefore I may be counted among the literates. I may be able to read what I write or even be able to translate it from one language to another but yet it may hold no meaning to me or bring any import to my state. Not that the words in themselves hold no meaning but I am unable to imbibe their meaning. I have written and read but the essence of those acts may be devoid of the action themselves – the essense of the reading itself. The world and its standard may consider me literate for my ability to read and write but not necessarily my ability to extract meaning from my writings or the ability to comprehend my readings.
Yet, global standards consider me literate. Because literacy, according to the world, is the ability to read and write.
This is a fundamental flaw of media literacy in the sense that the said word conveys totally different meanings to the listener from those originally intended by the author. Indeed, words, speeches and text may hold several composite factors, for instance, context, which brings the words alive and convey not just the meaning of the words but the original import, circumstance, and conditions surrounding the words which the author intentionally wove into the literal text. Such texts becomes alive and it is said to be living. They breath their very existence and are ageless. When a reader reads a text and strips it of these important elements, and yet they are considered literate but lose the exact essence of the text they have read then a flaw is propagated. And its a global one. One that wrongly defines literacy.
So I will strip a text of its context and talk about its context alone. For in my opinion, it is the understanding of the context of the text that brings the essence of the text to life. If you understand the essence of the text then you are literate.
I will describe the essence of a text as the original meaning intended by the author, the gut of the text – the inner most being of the text itself. The heart of the text or literally, the part that gives the text its breath of life. When a text is made alive, it elicits a certain response from the reader. A response for change, an action to move. The essence of a text could be likened to the charisma of the text or those of the author – as Heidegger would describe causa efficiens. The feeling we receive, to arise to action from an authoritative and eloquent speaker is the impartation of the essense of the text to, on and in us. It is different from the feeling of watching a news item, or reading the sports section of a newspaper with a triggerless outcome. A live text will constantly remain in our minds, will prick our conscience, and cause us to respond.
If the essence of a text can be conveyed without a literal representation, then a living text could be heard and not necessarily read. And thus literacy may not be tantamount to reading afterall but to a comprehension of the text through hearing. If we accept that meaning or essense could be imparted without reading (although reading is one and not the only way by which we can gain an understanding of a text) then literacy may and should not be defined in terms of reading alone. Thus it is the second definition of literacy that nearly appeals to me – the ability to encode and decode. For decoding refers to a process of understanding the hidden message within a medium. Media literacy is therefore a decoding of a text to the comprehension of the recipient of the same.
Encoding and decoding are words that can be used to replace the ability to speak and to understand a language other than yours, or to learn a new skill and apply it in a new way, or to learn music without a music degree. This new understanding sits well with traditional knowledge of medicine, or of wisdom, or of kinship handed down tacitly from generation to generation. This knowledge so passed down may not have been documented in literal terms but this fact does not make the custodian of these cultures, traditions and knowledge any less literate than one who may have read the literal text (if they were written down) and yet may not comprehend its essence. The learned fellow may not be any more literate than the custodian of this knowledge or culture.
Today, multimedia has began to define a new way of encoding and decoding knowledge. It does not anymore have to remain within the confines of written text and thus challenges the traditional mis-conception of knowledge or literacy as a thing within the domain of writers. If I can speak into a device, and that device can encode my knowledge into a form that can be searched, retrieved, or transcribed, all the actions that we can apply on traditional text and through which we have defined the standards of literacy above, then I am considered a knowledge creator and a literate person. Also, if I can photograph elements and through these process generate search-able knowledge then I am considered a literate person. In all of these, I many not have to have written a word of text and yet I am considered a literate person. Modern media thus questions the traditional definition of literary and in turn media literacy.
The definition of literacy resonated with me during Dr. Denis Hlynka's seminar on media literacy. Literacy is defined as the ability to read and write or the ability to encode and decode. It is the latter for which I am most concerned. For the ability to read and write may not be sufficient enough to represent the word literacy. I may write with a great degree of ambiguity, lack of understanding, or scribbles which may make no sense but may be written in standard roman or latin text and arabic numerals. I have written, in 'known' characters, therefore I may be counted among the literates. I may be able to read what I write or even be able to translate it from one language to another but yet it may hold no meaning to me or bring any import to my state. Not that the words in themselves hold no meaning but I am unable to imbibe their meaning. I have written and read but the essence of those acts may be devoid of the action themselves – the essense of the reading itself. The world and its standard may consider me literate for my ability to read and write but not necessarily my ability to extract meaning from my writings or the ability to comprehend my readings.
Yet, global standards consider me literate. Because literacy, according to the world, is the ability to read and write.
This is a fundamental flaw of media literacy in the sense that the said word conveys totally different meanings to the listener from those originally intended by the author. Indeed, words, speeches and text may hold several composite factors, for instance, context, which brings the words alive and convey not just the meaning of the words but the original import, circumstance, and conditions surrounding the words which the author intentionally wove into the literal text. Such texts becomes alive and it is said to be living. They breath their very existence and are ageless. When a reader reads a text and strips it of these important elements, and yet they are considered literate but lose the exact essence of the text they have read then a flaw is propagated. And its a global one. One that wrongly defines literacy.
So I will strip a text of its context and talk about its context alone. For in my opinion, it is the understanding of the context of the text that brings the essence of the text to life. If you understand the essence of the text then you are literate.
I will describe the essence of a text as the original meaning intended by the author, the gut of the text – the inner most being of the text itself. The heart of the text or literally, the part that gives the text its breath of life. When a text is made alive, it elicits a certain response from the reader. A response for change, an action to move. The essence of a text could be likened to the charisma of the text or those of the author – as Heidegger would describe causa efficiens. The feeling we receive, to arise to action from an authoritative and eloquent speaker is the impartation of the essense of the text to, on and in us. It is different from the feeling of watching a news item, or reading the sports section of a newspaper with a triggerless outcome. A live text will constantly remain in our minds, will prick our conscience, and cause us to respond.
If the essence of a text can be conveyed without a literal representation, then a living text could be heard and not necessarily read. And thus literacy may not be tantamount to reading afterall but to a comprehension of the text through hearing. If we accept that meaning or essense could be imparted without reading (although reading is one and not the only way by which we can gain an understanding of a text) then literacy may and should not be defined in terms of reading alone. Thus it is the second definition of literacy that nearly appeals to me – the ability to encode and decode. For decoding refers to a process of understanding the hidden message within a medium. Media literacy is therefore a decoding of a text to the comprehension of the recipient of the same.
Encoding and decoding are words that can be used to replace the ability to speak and to understand a language other than yours, or to learn a new skill and apply it in a new way, or to learn music without a music degree. This new understanding sits well with traditional knowledge of medicine, or of wisdom, or of kinship handed down tacitly from generation to generation. This knowledge so passed down may not have been documented in literal terms but this fact does not make the custodian of these cultures, traditions and knowledge any less literate than one who may have read the literal text (if they were written down) and yet may not comprehend its essence. The learned fellow may not be any more literate than the custodian of this knowledge or culture.
Today, multimedia has began to define a new way of encoding and decoding knowledge. It does not anymore have to remain within the confines of written text and thus challenges the traditional mis-conception of knowledge or literacy as a thing within the domain of writers. If I can speak into a device, and that device can encode my knowledge into a form that can be searched, retrieved, or transcribed, all the actions that we can apply on traditional text and through which we have defined the standards of literacy above, then I am considered a knowledge creator and a literate person. Also, if I can photograph elements and through these process generate search-able knowledge then I am considered a literate person. In all of these, I many not have to have written a word of text and yet I am considered a literate person. Modern media thus questions the traditional definition of literary and in turn media literacy.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Causes and Effects Accroding to Heidegger
Hiedegger's Questioning Concerning Technology starts off with an understanding of essence and ends with a profound statement, "For questioning is the piety of thought." Between these two milestones of that discuss lie nuggets; wealth, the quest for truth, essence and being; democracy, social and environmental justice; a few mention of technology itself, but Heidegger manages to ensure that the discuss is not drawn to technology in of itself but its essence. It is important to highlight that Hiedegger uses analogies to describe his philosophies and age old tradition of using the known to peer into the immediate unknown; hydroelectric power plants, the windmill, bridges, and of course the ultimate chalice in its chaliceness. It was as if he was using concepts that his audience understood and asking them to see beyond their understanding of the same to discover what the essence of every day things could further reveal. Thus, Hiedegger starts with the questioning of their own understanding - their understanding of technology. He starts his questioning from two points; essence and truth and arrives at a discuss that puts aside the mere definition of technology as a means to an end and as a human activity to a discuss that focuses on the essense of technology itself. For it is in understanding the essence of a thing that that thing is revealed to us. And the revealing of the thing is only but a small aspect of its essence that requires further questioning. Thus, questioning does not stop as seeking essence leads to more revealing.
Hiedegger starts by stating that the existing definitions of technology as instrumental and anthropological is limiting and enframing. He would go on to argue that enframing is "the extreme danger" to technology's essence, and that it can block all "appearing of truth." But we understand technology today purely from its enframing. This or that tool can be used for this or that thing. An ipod is for listening to music or the mobile phone is for talking only or that tool is not appropriate as an educational technology. Or this, or that... So much that we do not see the further use of the ipod or mobile phone for other uses.
Hiedegger goes on to argue that it is the instrumental definition of technology (and I reckon, our enframing of it) that allows us the freedom to classify technology as old or new. Hence, he would discuss the difference between the windmill and the hydroelectric power plant. Old vs. new technology. In our day, we will discuss the pencil vs. the word processor; Youtube and on demand TV vs traditional unidirectional broadcast models; or the chalkboard vs. the slide projector. At one point in time, what we now use, we questioned their essence only to accept them as educational technologies much later when we knew we would miss the train if we did otherwise. The enframing of technology allowing us the freedom to classify technology makes us see technology as a means to an end and not a process. If we could only see the pencil as belonging in the era of Youtube and facebook, perhaps we will question its essence such as would lead us into the "bringing forth" of an electronic stylus or a finger enabled 6th sense pointing device which in actual fact is an extension of the pencil; which in actual fact came from the early man drawing in the sand with the tip of his finger. Hiedegger questions enframing and enframing is limiting. For us to bring forth better things and to use technology for our good we must cast enframing aside.
We must also critically look at causes and effects. For causes and effects are linear and linearity is also an enframing. If this, then that. This goes before that and that only. Hiedegger uses the analogy of the chalice to argue that the four (materialis, formulis, finalis, efficiens) causes may be limiting and that the application of the four causes to the definition of technology limits technology's essence and that the definition of technology as defined by the four causes makes it obscure. Hiedegger argues that cause efficiens, the import of the creator of the chalice erodes cause finalis (the purpose for which the chalice is created). For cause finalis is an end in itself and defining technology with an end is limiting. It is as if to say, if we have the fisherman, we do not need the fish.
Hiedegger goes on to argue that causa efficiens comes from the verb "to fall", cadere, which has nothing to do with post aristocratic's bringing forth but rather, an indebtedness to its matter (hyle), its shape (eidos), its circumscribing (telos), and the logos, who is responsible for the bringing forth of the substance. In every day terms, this translates to our what, why, how, when, who where of the substance in question. If in our quest of questioning the essence of technology we could iteratively answer those questions, then we are an iterative step closer each time to finding its essence, the truth about its bringing forth and the means of making it better for humans.
Hiedegger starts by stating that the existing definitions of technology as instrumental and anthropological is limiting and enframing. He would go on to argue that enframing is "the extreme danger" to technology's essence, and that it can block all "appearing of truth." But we understand technology today purely from its enframing. This or that tool can be used for this or that thing. An ipod is for listening to music or the mobile phone is for talking only or that tool is not appropriate as an educational technology. Or this, or that... So much that we do not see the further use of the ipod or mobile phone for other uses.
Hiedegger goes on to argue that it is the instrumental definition of technology (and I reckon, our enframing of it) that allows us the freedom to classify technology as old or new. Hence, he would discuss the difference between the windmill and the hydroelectric power plant. Old vs. new technology. In our day, we will discuss the pencil vs. the word processor; Youtube and on demand TV vs traditional unidirectional broadcast models; or the chalkboard vs. the slide projector. At one point in time, what we now use, we questioned their essence only to accept them as educational technologies much later when we knew we would miss the train if we did otherwise. The enframing of technology allowing us the freedom to classify technology makes us see technology as a means to an end and not a process. If we could only see the pencil as belonging in the era of Youtube and facebook, perhaps we will question its essence such as would lead us into the "bringing forth" of an electronic stylus or a finger enabled 6th sense pointing device which in actual fact is an extension of the pencil; which in actual fact came from the early man drawing in the sand with the tip of his finger. Hiedegger questions enframing and enframing is limiting. For us to bring forth better things and to use technology for our good we must cast enframing aside.
We must also critically look at causes and effects. For causes and effects are linear and linearity is also an enframing. If this, then that. This goes before that and that only. Hiedegger uses the analogy of the chalice to argue that the four (materialis, formulis, finalis, efficiens) causes may be limiting and that the application of the four causes to the definition of technology limits technology's essence and that the definition of technology as defined by the four causes makes it obscure. Hiedegger argues that cause efficiens, the import of the creator of the chalice erodes cause finalis (the purpose for which the chalice is created). For cause finalis is an end in itself and defining technology with an end is limiting. It is as if to say, if we have the fisherman, we do not need the fish.
Hiedegger goes on to argue that causa efficiens comes from the verb "to fall", cadere, which has nothing to do with post aristocratic's bringing forth but rather, an indebtedness to its matter (hyle), its shape (eidos), its circumscribing (telos), and the logos, who is responsible for the bringing forth of the substance. In every day terms, this translates to our what, why, how, when, who where of the substance in question. If in our quest of questioning the essence of technology we could iteratively answer those questions, then we are an iterative step closer each time to finding its essence, the truth about its bringing forth and the means of making it better for humans.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Crisis in American Media and its impact on the Global scale
Crisis in American Media and its impact on the Global scale [1] [2]
There is a crisis in the American media landscape. It is a local crisis that has global implications but the crisis levels may be different across geographic locations. Major media institutions are closing their foreign bureaus and calling home their foreign correspondents. Local newspapers are declining or completely disappearing from the newsstands. Community radios are heavily impacted by the financial crisis. Print and broadcasts media are in crisis.
For a largely geographic country and a widely distributed population such as the US, this crisis has grave implications. One of this implication is the challenge of having a national newspaper. Technology would and could facilitate the distribution mechanism for newspapers across the country, but technology may not be the solution to problems of context, culture, locally relevant news and ownership.
The US operates a federal system. This means that decisions are implemented at a state or local level. If the information channels are not available or they break down due to financial implications, as they currently are, then the result is a seriously diminished capacity of citizens to use their rights to inform decision making at the national and local levels. Conversely, the citizens fall into an info drought as the flow of information from the nation to local or state is equally affected.
The break down of information flows and the collapse of the media may not be attributable only to the financial crisis but a ferocious and constant blow that social networking and new media forms continually exert on the media landscape. Are we seeing the end of the newspaper (or traditional media) era? Is the newspaper dead?
The newspapers and its institutionalized infrastructure defined a foundation of professional journalism. Broadcast media extended the same. The ethics of unbiased investigative reporting of large media outlets becomes a challenge with the recent supreme court rulings unbanning political spending by corporations. This leaves room for large media institutions to become partisan. Is this the solution to the crisis?
In the meantime, jobs have been lost, and much more.
Local media, ie. Local newspapers and TV have been the primary sources of providing local news. The news departments used to be the profit center of any media institution. This has changed. Local media suffers from an onslaught of pressure from cable companies completely eroding locally relevant news. The media institution is consolidating, resulting in no locally owned or operated media institutions except for a few local radios that may be ailing.
On the other hand, large media institutions like MSNBC and CNN may be thriving but may also be suffering economic loses as a result of fervent competition between themselves and against their own (CNN vs. Headline News) plus, there is the Fox News effect.
The newspapers have also suffered from the Internet. The Internet has killed newspaper advertisement and has challenged traditional financial models. Craig's List and Google have defined new ways of online advertisement that have stripped revenue from these media institutions. The newspaper will not survive today without advertisement revenue. And in response to this onslaught, the traditional newspapers lifted the ad model, priced it according to its paper version and placed it on the Internet hoping it would generate the same response. A case of old wine in new wineskin. Google redefined advertising, innovatively introducing “click throughs” rather than impressions that the traditional ad models were crafted after. Ad supported journalism is different requiring a re-definition of business models.
The public media is not spared the rod.
While this crisis has hit large media, there is a mushrooning of citizen journalism. Community blogs sprout to fill the gaps of local news. A DIY mentality to news gathering and production. The citizens have taken the bull by the horn by providing for themselves a solution to the crisis. News production has become cheap, decentralized and local. Micro-blogging such as tweeter produce instant news summaries, flickr and other online photo galleries fill in the gap for photo journalism. The birth of citizen journalism is announced and social media is exploited to fill in the gap left by large conglomerates for local news productions. We have seen these numerous times lately, the recent Haitian earthquake and the Iranian crisis where citizens blogged, twittered and flickred images even before large media could parachute their foreign correspondents where they once had bureaus. Citizen media is instant, realtime and may cover areas where mainstream media may not be interested.
Will mainstream media support this onslaught? What are some immediate solutions?
Media would need to adjust to new paradigms. Besides the possibility of public funds (in trickles) to support local, traditional media, there may be need for participatory media. A new form that allows interaction between traditional and citizen media. A volunteer model needs to be built into traditional media. Media needs to embrace open technologies models such as would encourage participation. Listeners could themselves become journalists in reporting local news. The reporter would become a part of a network of informed citizens. Participatory media will improve accountability and democracy.
But one challenge still remains, who will take the info from off the news grid and place them on the grid. Who will do the investigative journalism bit if media takes after the participatory citizen models? How can citizens uncover stories against people with deep pockets and large monies? Are institutions still needed to fulfill the fundamental role of news. Or should the formal institutional model challenged by citizens give way to more citizen decentralized institutional models?
The news industry may require wild experimentation, allow trial and error business, reporting, aggregating, distributing and content dissemination models, celebrate failure, and encourage innovation. This may be the solution in the current murky storm of a media landscape plagued by a financial crisis, social media and user generated content.
-----
[1] From an Open Society Institute panel discussion on “The Future of American Journalism”, held, in New York, January 27-30, 2010.
[2] In lieu of missing my weeklySeminar in Educational Technologies, I have made this posting in agreement with Dr. Hlinka's recommendation.
There is a crisis in the American media landscape. It is a local crisis that has global implications but the crisis levels may be different across geographic locations. Major media institutions are closing their foreign bureaus and calling home their foreign correspondents. Local newspapers are declining or completely disappearing from the newsstands. Community radios are heavily impacted by the financial crisis. Print and broadcasts media are in crisis.
For a largely geographic country and a widely distributed population such as the US, this crisis has grave implications. One of this implication is the challenge of having a national newspaper. Technology would and could facilitate the distribution mechanism for newspapers across the country, but technology may not be the solution to problems of context, culture, locally relevant news and ownership.
The US operates a federal system. This means that decisions are implemented at a state or local level. If the information channels are not available or they break down due to financial implications, as they currently are, then the result is a seriously diminished capacity of citizens to use their rights to inform decision making at the national and local levels. Conversely, the citizens fall into an info drought as the flow of information from the nation to local or state is equally affected.
The break down of information flows and the collapse of the media may not be attributable only to the financial crisis but a ferocious and constant blow that social networking and new media forms continually exert on the media landscape. Are we seeing the end of the newspaper (or traditional media) era? Is the newspaper dead?
The newspapers and its institutionalized infrastructure defined a foundation of professional journalism. Broadcast media extended the same. The ethics of unbiased investigative reporting of large media outlets becomes a challenge with the recent supreme court rulings unbanning political spending by corporations. This leaves room for large media institutions to become partisan. Is this the solution to the crisis?
In the meantime, jobs have been lost, and much more.
Local media, ie. Local newspapers and TV have been the primary sources of providing local news. The news departments used to be the profit center of any media institution. This has changed. Local media suffers from an onslaught of pressure from cable companies completely eroding locally relevant news. The media institution is consolidating, resulting in no locally owned or operated media institutions except for a few local radios that may be ailing.
On the other hand, large media institutions like MSNBC and CNN may be thriving but may also be suffering economic loses as a result of fervent competition between themselves and against their own (CNN vs. Headline News) plus, there is the Fox News effect.
The newspapers have also suffered from the Internet. The Internet has killed newspaper advertisement and has challenged traditional financial models. Craig's List and Google have defined new ways of online advertisement that have stripped revenue from these media institutions. The newspaper will not survive today without advertisement revenue. And in response to this onslaught, the traditional newspapers lifted the ad model, priced it according to its paper version and placed it on the Internet hoping it would generate the same response. A case of old wine in new wineskin. Google redefined advertising, innovatively introducing “click throughs” rather than impressions that the traditional ad models were crafted after. Ad supported journalism is different requiring a re-definition of business models.
The public media is not spared the rod.
While this crisis has hit large media, there is a mushrooning of citizen journalism. Community blogs sprout to fill the gaps of local news. A DIY mentality to news gathering and production. The citizens have taken the bull by the horn by providing for themselves a solution to the crisis. News production has become cheap, decentralized and local. Micro-blogging such as tweeter produce instant news summaries, flickr and other online photo galleries fill in the gap for photo journalism. The birth of citizen journalism is announced and social media is exploited to fill in the gap left by large conglomerates for local news productions. We have seen these numerous times lately, the recent Haitian earthquake and the Iranian crisis where citizens blogged, twittered and flickred images even before large media could parachute their foreign correspondents where they once had bureaus. Citizen media is instant, realtime and may cover areas where mainstream media may not be interested.
Will mainstream media support this onslaught? What are some immediate solutions?
Media would need to adjust to new paradigms. Besides the possibility of public funds (in trickles) to support local, traditional media, there may be need for participatory media. A new form that allows interaction between traditional and citizen media. A volunteer model needs to be built into traditional media. Media needs to embrace open technologies models such as would encourage participation. Listeners could themselves become journalists in reporting local news. The reporter would become a part of a network of informed citizens. Participatory media will improve accountability and democracy.
But one challenge still remains, who will take the info from off the news grid and place them on the grid. Who will do the investigative journalism bit if media takes after the participatory citizen models? How can citizens uncover stories against people with deep pockets and large monies? Are institutions still needed to fulfill the fundamental role of news. Or should the formal institutional model challenged by citizens give way to more citizen decentralized institutional models?
The news industry may require wild experimentation, allow trial and error business, reporting, aggregating, distributing and content dissemination models, celebrate failure, and encourage innovation. This may be the solution in the current murky storm of a media landscape plagued by a financial crisis, social media and user generated content.
-----
[1] From an Open Society Institute panel discussion on “The Future of American Journalism”, held, in New York, January 27-30, 2010.
[2] In lieu of missing my weeklySeminar in Educational Technologies, I have made this posting in agreement with Dr. Hlinka's recommendation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
