In this week’s reading Gitelman discusses what we see as ‘new media’ in comparison to what we see as ‘old media’. Importantly, he highlights that all media was once new and therefore ‘new media’ is simply a modified version of something else. He warns against imagining ‘new media’ such as the World Wide Web, as a tool for fixing all the problems of the world, as it allows for the same control possessed by ‘old media’.

Gitelman also questions how much technological conditions determine meaning. In thinking of ‘older’ media such as books, it’s easier to see how a writer may have been the main designer of meaning, even if a reader interprets this meaning differently to what is intended. However, technology – the Internet – obscures this and makes it harder to identify who has agency over a message. Gitelman suggests that it’s this obscurity that tricks us into thinking the World Wide Web, as a ‘new medium’, is neutral.

There is so much thought around the Internet and its effect on social conditions. However, I think it’s important to think of it as any other medium, one which has the power to create culture, values and beliefs in society.

The Potts and Murphie reading from Week 8 discussed technological determinism ; the idea that technology drives social change, and therefore determines what we do and essentially, the choices we make. However, I disagree with this argument.

I believe technology is an important factor in social development. In considering more simple, ‘old fashioned’ technologies we might imagine how books and writing have allowed us to absorb knowledge, which in turn has led to the making of many opinions and decisions. But books themselves didn’t determine what we did, instead we used books – technology – to create change.

When thinking about modern-day technologies such as the Internet, the same principal can be applied. We use the Internet to do many different things, all of which contribute to social change. Importantly however, it is us who decide how we use this technology to create cultures that lead to social change. A good example of this can be read here.

The Potts and Murphie reading has raised my awareness to the dangers of thinking technology controls us, because in doing so we leave everything up to technology and ignore the important human factors that have always been present in social development and change.

The Week Eight readings reminded me of something my friend told me this week.

My friend is a beautiful girl who really wants to meet a beautiful guy. I have to take my hat of to her because she’s extremely proactive in her pursuit of love. The other day she told me she’d met a new guy who was really great, but unfortunately he’s a good friend of one of her ex-boyfriends.

“Not again!” I said.

Yes, that’s right. This isn’t the first guy she’s dated who is friends with that particular ex-boyfriend.

My friend then said to me: “Maybe I’m stuck in the same circle, but how to I break free?”

I think I may have an answer for her.

Barabasi (2002) says ‘the weak ties, or acquaintances [in social grous], are our bridge to the outside world, since by frequenting different places they obtain their information from different sources than our immediate friends’ (p. 43).

Barabasi discusses how social networks can be quite generic, whereby a network of friends in which many people know each other makes it hard to break out into other networks. This is what Watts (2003) attributes to a ‘small world’. He says ‘the more your friends know each other, the less use they are to you in getting a message to someone you don’t know (p. 41). However, each person in a network will have acquaintances (weak ties) that don’t know each other, but have close social networks of their own, and this is a useful discovery in attempting to break free of your usual circle of friends (and also a way to stop dating your ex-boyfriend’s mates).

This is an interesting way to look at networking (and great advice for my soul mate seeking friend) in the contemporary media environment (the Internet), in particular when it comes to gaining employment, marketing a business, selling a product and so on. Although social networks are clusters of stronger links, the weak links that exist from these clusters to other clusters can connect very distant people, very easily. The Internet facilitates the practice of employing weaker links (Facebook, LinkedIn etc.) making the ability to connect with others easier than ever before.

The Douglas reading this week got me thinking about one of my favorite stories; Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Cliche I know, but I love a good romance. Every time I watch the Baz Luhrmann interpretation of this story I’m tormented by the same questions: What if Romeo had received notice about Juliet’s plan to fake her own death? What if he’d waited just a few seconds longer? What if Juliet’s plan worked and they escaped to mantua and lived happily ever after?

Truthfully, I find this story so devastating I wish I could change the ending, but at the same time I know I can’t which is what makes it such a masterpiece.

I like the idea of a beginning, middle and an end, and I also like the idea of being taken on a journey. Interactive reading is intriguing, and I think it’s important to have the power to create our own meaning with a text, but I also love that a good old fashioned story gives you no option but to view life differently. Perhaps it leaves you unsatisfied, but isn’t that what life is about sometimes?

I think if all stories were interactive there’d be less lessons learnt because we’d always be making choices to suit ourselves. Even if different readers choose different endings we’d still, as interactive readers, have the ability to change the ending again.

As much as the story of Romeo and Juliet breaks my heart, it is what it is and there’s nothing I can do about it. Without Shakespeare’s control over the reader through a beginning-to-end structure, what lessons would we learn? It would be a sad world indeed without this tragic tale.

The week two readings on Copyright and Creative Commons have got me thinking.

First of all, I must tell my little sister who spends a lot of time blogging about fashion, to be careful. I’m sure she has no idea about Copyright laws, or where to find material that can be used freely.

Secondly, the discussion on Copyright makes me think of something Banksy wrote on Copyright in the Context of Advertising.

I think Banksy’s view on Copyrighted material is a valid one. What it comes down to is keeping money in certain people’s pockets, money that comes from us, the subjects whose public space is saturated with this material. So, why can’t we have a slice?

Adrian’s example from last week, the case of Michelle Phan shows how Copyright laws protect the wealth of big conglomerates. It’s interesting to note in this case that the creative artist (Kaskade) was happy about Michelle’s sharing of his music, because he’d gained a healthier following. However, it was the record company (Ultra Records) suing Michelle for using material that is legally owned by them. I wonder if they’d have bothered suing Michelle had she not made money out her of blog? Probably not, as there’d be nothing in it for them.

To expand on this a little further, what about when Copyrighted material is used to create something new? Why shouldn’t we be able to use other people’s material to create new things, new ideas and new cultures? Is anything really original anyway? What is original? Is there such a thing?

In my opinion creativity is for sharing, but it seems money and greed are the biggest thwarter of creativity.

After reading ‘Blogs in Media Education’ by Adrian Miles, I’ve come to a better understanding of the importance of blogging. It’s not just a means of expressing one’s views, passions and ideas i.e. communicating in the traditional sense, but a fundamental part of a network of media, which represents the contemporary communication environment.

One idea from the reading that struck me as particularly important is that blogging enables us – consumers – to not only learn from others, but to play an active role in the production of information. Thus, it facilitates a culture of participation that subverts the conventional idea that media is produced by certain actors and passively absorbed by consumers. Furthermore, blogging or participating in an online network of media, allows us to have a say in the meaning of things, thus we are not limited simply to the information produced by media powerhouses.

Now that my critical response to the reading is out of the way, let me show you what people are actually blogging about. What kinds of information are people like you and I producing? The answer is, anything and everything! You name it, from Politics to baking it’s being produced.

I’ve spent the last couple of days searching for blogs to add to my blogroll, and I’ve come across some that are more like works of art! Check out the 2013 winners of the Australian Writers’ Centre Best Australian Blog for some inspiration. Applications for the 2014 competition are already closed, but if you really get into it you could be in the running for 2015!

Best Australian Blog 2013 Winners