Baby, baby, baby ooh: The Bieber Fever

WEEK 9: Burgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Reader, page 269). Discuss this argument giving an example of a YouTube video.

 

YouTube is undeniably becoming a platform for a new kind of media influence. Burgess and Green agree that “YouTube has been mythologized as literally a way to ‘broadcast yourself’ into fame and fortune” (Burgess & Green 2009: 22). So much so that talent scouts are now looking at online mediums as a way of finding the ‘next big thing’ (Burgess & Green 2009: 22).

With growing access to sites like YouTube and many people displaying their talents online, how can we know the difference between an ‘ordinary person’ with talent and a ‘celebrity’?

This question can be answered by democracy. With choice to view what we wish on the Internet, we inevitably target stars that will be liked by the masses. But when your YouTube video goes viral, is that considered genuine success? Or are you restricted to your YouTube fame?
There is no denying that not just anyone who posts videos can skyrocket to celebrity status overnight. People not only require talent, but also must be aesthetic pleasing to some degree and have the ability to actively engage their audience.

YouTube’s biggest success story of all would have to be the 14-year-old boy that captured the nation with his voice… yep you guessed it Justin Bieber. Just as Burgess and Green state, large masses are necessary to promote these over night celebrities into the world of fame. Whilst starting off posting videos of himself singing he has definitely made it out of the realm of YouTube celebrity and has plunged into basically every form of media existing. But the real question is have you got Bieber Fever?

In Bieber’s case he has become a performer for the masses and like Burgess and Green infer, there is no going back. Justin Beiber’s recent Hollywood hit ‘Never say Never” authorizes the fact that even YouTube icons who carefully groomed, inevitably reaching out to the masses.

Yet YouTube also provides examples to the contrary. Chris Crocker hit stardom with his famous sobbing plea to “Leave Britney (Spears) alone”. This single video escalated him into fame, a status he could only possibly maintain via participation online in YouTube. Ultimately he was controlled by the masses as he provided one amusing video in relation to the recent meltdown of World renown celebrity Britney Spears. This is a prime example which portrays the ‘internal system’ of YouTube and how it perhaps isn’t always in sync with the more ‘dominant [forms of] media’ (Burgess and Green 2009:270).

Fundamentally, Mainstream media have relished in DIY amateur videos, consequently turning ‘ordinary people’ into the Justin Biebers of the world. Yet it is here where many reach their downfall. Once people are skyrocketed into stardom via mass media, many are unable to maintain their level of fame, restricting their celebrity to a series of YouTube videos. Ultimately, I confer with Burgess and Green and believe that mass media controls how famous you are.

 

REFERENCES:

http://www.womansday.com/Articles/Life/10-YouTube-Success-Stories.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQOFRZ1wNLw&feature=related

Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, YouTube and the Mainstream Media, in YouTube: Online and Participatory Culture, Cambridge: Polity press, 2009

Sharing is caring

WEEK 10: Following week 10 tutorial’s exercise, explain why you chose the Creative Commons license that you added to your blog and discuss the relevance (or not) of adding the license.

Some rights reserved by karindalziel

In my opinion, Creative Commons is a fascinating topic of discussion. With the Internet reaching all corners of the globe, how can we unify in the control of creative intelligence? And more importantly, how can mange people to follow these rules put in place?

Creative Commons are an organization that attempts to govern authors’ intellectual content displayed on the web.

After spending much time deliberating over which Creative Commons license to choose, I have decided to adopt the ‘Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0’ License for my blog. I feel this license most appropriately suits what I believe to be the essential rights of an author, whilst still encouraging the prospect of creative sharing.

To break it down for you, I am supporting the rights to…

1.  Attribute any work used in a way specified by the author or licensor

2. Noncommercial use of their work (not for commercial purposes)

3.  Share Alike, where you are able to ‘alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.’

Essentially this license gives consumers consent to share via their transmission, copying or distributing of work, as well as allowing them to remix it. This license essentially promotes media sharing much like Zuckerberg’s wish to ‘[create] a more open world’ in attempt to prevent overuse of copyright.

“Creative commons thus represents an attempt to roll back the intellectual property approach to copyright in order to facilitate more open access to creative works” (Garcelon, 2009).

Don’t get me wrong, as a writer myself; I feel that attribution to the author is of extreme importance. I am personally willing to share my ideas, yet I perhaps selfishly want my work credited especially if others decide to benefit from it. The non-commercial aspect of this license is also significant to my decision. I disagree with people using others creative intelligence to benefit and perhaps even profit from. Finally, ShareAlike supports this notion of ‘caring is sharing’, which I believe could allow creativity to flourish as people inspire others.

Creative Commons are a blossoming phenomenon that targets an area that has proven highly difficult to control. Just like in the real world, there still lie unclear rules for policing and maintenance of intellectual integrity. The current copyright rules attempted to complete this task but have proven too ridged hence the rise of Creative Commons. Copy Right laws can still be credited for their principled intentions to maintain control over creative intelligence.

But Creative Commons are definitely here to stay with leading websites such as Google, Flickr and Wikipedia all currently using creative commons licenses.

Ultimately I choose this license because as a student, having learned by example for many years I believe that advancement comes from a collective support. Whilst I doubt that my blog has helped any academic progress in the field of Net Communications, it can remain as a complementary source stemmed from discussion of pre-existing ideas.

As the saying goes, ‘two heads are better than one’.

REFERENCES:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWDneu_w_HQ&feature=player_embedded

Garcelon, Marc. ‘an Information Commons? Creative Commons and Public Access to Cutlrual Creations’, New Media and Society 11.8 (2009): 1307-1326.

Lessig, Lawrence ‘Open Code and Open Societies’, in Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam and Karim R. Lakhani (eds) Perspectives on Free ad Open source Software, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005, pp. 349-360.

Prying into Privacy

WEEK 5: Analyse critically the following statement by Mark Zuckerberg while comparing it to privacy issues raised by online social networking collaborative practices

Facebook is undeniably the leading social network of our generation. The hugely successful creator and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, comments on Facebook’s privacy settings after much controversy over the introduction of its’ revised privacy settings.

Here is what he had to say…

“When people have control over want they share, they’re comfortable sharing more. When people share more, the world becomes more open and connected. And in a more open world many of the biggest problems we face together will become easier to solve”

Zuckerberg makes the somewhat naïve assumption, that when we have control over what we are displaying, people will be more willing to share. However is this really the case? Perhaps not.. If it has become simpler to operate our privacy settings, then who’s to say that we won’t relish in this convenience and shy away from being exposed to an even greater public domain?

Since its launch in 2004, Facebook has exploded and become our generations leading social network. It is a domain that promotes the sharing of public information via photos, invitations and other interactions. Yet with this new era of communication via increased sharing, comes many risks and issues over a lack of privacy. The main issues revolve around the release of personal information, such as dates of birth, telephone numbers, addresses and many others.

Concerns have been circulating the media for a while in regards to people’s carelessness with dispersing personal information. Sophos undertook an experiement whereby she sent out 200 friend requests via Facebook to strangers, in order to investigate the response of dispersing personal information to unknown people (Messmer 2007). She discovered that in majority of the cases, access was given to respondents’ photos of family and friends, plus personal interests and dislikes. In one case a respondent even gave out their mothers maiden name- a common response to personal identification questions for financial accounts.

This accidental leaking of personal information is more comman than you think. Robert McMillan from PCWorld echoes this concern.Identity theft nowadays is no longer just restricted to credit cards, but is becoming an increasing problem in social networks due to low privacy settings. Supposedly, a hacker going by the name of ‘Kirllos’ has offered up over 1.5 million Facebook user accounts for sale. These accusations haven’t been confirmed or denied by Facebook but nonetheless, this shows a great problem in having low privacy settings in social networks. Therefore anyone with a distinctive name should be at risk, but then again, isn’t that everyone? (Wise,2010)

Unfortunately this isn’t the only issue. Over time, the revised default privacy settings have been altered to enhance the collaborative medium, often affecting Facebook users due to no prior warning of change. However, these changes have had an effect on users as “default settings matter, because research has shown that people rarely change them” (Boyd; Hargitaai, 2010).

Some rights reserved by rpongsaj

Facebook has always provided sufficient privacy settings, however the difficulty for users to access or alter these privacy settings has come under scrutiny. People generally do not take the time of day to renegotiate the terms of their privacy settings if it will take a copious amount of time and effort.

Whilst Facebook’s privacy settings have changed over time, it could in fact be, that complexity in the activation of high privacy settings was indeed a purposeful move on behalf of Facebook, promoting the notion of ‘sharing’ whilst disregarding any problems this could have. I believe privacy controls should be simpler and easy to understand. Yes, people have the opportunity to change these settings, however many people need to be educated on the ramifications of overexposing themselves on these social networks.

Ultimately, whilst Zuckerberg’s depiction of this utopian world appears seemingly noble and idealistic, I believe he sounds quite ignorant and ill-informed. I think that when people have the power to control what they share they will in fact choose the latter, and share less.

MY REFERENCES:

Boyd, Danah; Ellison, Nicole, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 13, Issue 1, October 2007, pp. 210-230

McMillian, Robert. April 23, 2010, “15 million stolen facebook ids up for sale”<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/194843/15_million_stolen_facebook_ids_up_for_sale.html>

Messmer, Ellen Aug 14, 2007 “Study: Facebook users easy targets for identity theft”<http://www.macworld.com/article/59488/2007/08/facebook.html>

Wise, Barry. April 23, 2010, “Social media identity theft hits facebook stolen identities up for sale” <http://knowem.com/blog/2010/04/23/social-media-identity-theft-hits-facebook-stolen-identities-up-for-sale/>

Blogging vs. Mainstream Media… Is it really out with the old and in with the new?

WEEK 4: Russell (et al.) compares elite media and institutions with bloggers and ponders the following question: “Do bloggers, with their editorial independence, collaborative structure and merit-based popularity more effectively inform the public?” (Reader, page 136). Do you agree? Use examples to illustrate your point of view.

AttributionNoncommercialShare Alike Some rights reserved by Krista76

In a society immersed in technology, blogs are without a doubt transforming the online media world (Russell et al., 2008:67). Along with a history littered with propaganda campaigns, it is no wonder we seek an alternative way of receiving the news rather as opposed to just believing what we are fed by other media sources. With increased opportunity for ‘amateur cultural production’ it has blurred the line between professional media produce and amateur media content which creates contradictions between these two sources.

But whom should we listen to? And more importantly where can we find accurate truths?

It is no surprise that blogs are inevitably biased; you would be hard-pressed to find one that is characteristically impartial. Yet isn’t that why we read them? We are curious beings who are eager to know and comment on others’ opinions, and blogging is the perfect outlet for this. It is here where we have the power to debate, rebut and confer with people on a wide scale that has proven to be a thriving past time for many. It is thus no wonder the ‘blogosphere’ has exploded.

Russell (2008) speaks about the power of “Western-trained journalists in middle-eastern countries” on the media world. They are simultaneously criticized by the mainstream media for their lack of professionalism by recounting their stories via blogs, and applauded for their honesty by concerned civilians. As a result these stories leak into mainstream media. They are able to report their war experiences on a public domain along with other citizens who recount the silenced stories of war. Russell attributes this increase in ‘DIY’ media producers to the more readily available Internet access. It is stories like these where people turn to Blogs as they are “immediate, interactive and accessible to anyone who stumbles on a truth the mainstream media, for whatever reason, chooses to ignore” (Brodsky 2005). In this way Blogs perhaps win out over Mainstream Media (MSM) as they fill in the gaps that MSM cannot or will not tell us.

Lets look at Arianna Huffington as an example. Since 2005, when this wealthy socialite decided to challenge mainstream political media, she has created one of the most influential online blogs with a huge band of followers. With recent blogs accumulating over 600 comments, fueling debate and interest worldwide. People relish in the fact they can participate and actively engage in what is happening, ultimately centering this source of online media around the information we want to know about.

Yet how many blogs influence our society as much as mainstream media? What about the less influential blogs, do people really trust what your average Joe has to say? I highly doubt people will become so complacent with blogs that the Channel Ten news will go out of business, because how many blogs are as dramatically influential as the Huffingtonpost? Conversely, Russell suggests that perhaps pre-existing reputable media industries and heading towards “imminent doom”, a statement I find quite overdramatic and exaggerated (Russell et al 2008 p49).

Russell also suggests that the “informal banter” styled writing of blogs is simply a replay of “existing cultural work”. He infers, contrastingly to his other statement, that perhaps bloggers aren’t trying to compete with main stream media at all, but are merely existing as complementary content where the public can clearly understand a more rounded view of topics (Russell et al 2008 p46). Johnathan Deamer, a regular blogger echoes this opinion and describes his own blog as ‘for when proper writing is just too much effort’.

But is it really out with the old and in with new?

Ultimately I have come to the conclusion that yes blogs do effectively inform us, yet it is hard to say whether it is more or less so than elite media. Blogs have without a doubt created a shift in the power balance between the two competing media sources, and have targeted consumer citizens who take pleasure in the right to decide and produce blogs. However, we heavily rely on elite media to keep us up to date with general world affairs, whilst turning to blogs for more select topics targeted for niche interests. It would be impossible for mainstream media to keep us up to date on all topics of interest regularly and effectively.

Therefore I believe that these two competing and often contradicting forms of media, indeed complement and depend on one another, co-existing to effectively inform the public.

MY REFERENCES:

Viewed May 15, 2011 <http://ashotofjd.com/>

Viewed May 14, 2011 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/>

Brodsky, Ira. February 14, 2005, ‘Blogosphere vs. mainstream media’, viewed  May 15, 2011 <http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/021405brodsky.html>

Russell, A., Ito, M., Richmond, T. and Tuters, M. (2008) ‘Culture: Media Convergence and Networked Culture’ pp. 43-76 in Varnelis, K (ed.) Networked Publics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Who puts the ‘You’ in YouTube?

WEEK 3: While discussing YouTube, José van Dijck argues that the site’s interface influences the popularity of videos through ranking tactics that promote popular favourites (Reader, page 94). How do ranking tactics impact on the formation online ‘communities’?

It’s YOU!

Attribution Some rights reserved by jonsson

Simply by using the Youtube webiste, you become a member of its online community, whether it is by actively contributing content in the form of videos and comments or by passively watching and increasing the views of the video. It is inevitable with any social community for a hierarchy to form; ranging from the most popular aspects to the less desirable or perhaps not as widely known about or accepted aspects, with YouTube being no exception. Whilst all YouTube Users are part of the greater online community, via the website, smaller groups form according to mutual interest and continue to flourish via related pages that are suggested. Yet YouTube’s homepage has obstructed this formation of online communities, by veering users toward certain content.

YouTube encourages you to freely “Broadcast Yourself”, promoting self expression and liberation, yet, as the theorist Van Dijick has forewarned, it could actually be that the creators and administrators of YouTube have a hidden agenda. On the homepage, there are ‘most viewed’ videos and ‘top favorite’ videos which naturally attract a larger proportion of viewers to watch videos simply out of curiosity. These ranking systems seen on the interface epitomize the concern Van Dijick has with YouTube’s supposed “participatory culture”. Users are automatically exposed to material that they otherwise may have never looked at or been interested in, subtly manipulating them to watch what is the most accessible. Whilst this does not necessarily negatively impact anyone, it can be seen as a way of changing the formation of that particular sub group, as people who may not have ever heard about a group or video are now involved in the group, just as I am now ever so fascinatedly watching “fail compliation March 2011” which appeared on the ‘most  viewed’ section of my YouTube homepage.

Another contributing factor to the impact of online communities is the ‘recommended for you’ section. as mine suggests I should watch ‘How to get Candle Wax out of your carpet?’ because yes, you guessed it, I recently spilt hot pink candle wax on my brand new carpet (which also happens to be my mother’s pride and joy). The very fact that my YouTube account can notify me of other fun and exciting candle wax removal ideas is testament to the fact that I have now joined the ever so dull sub-community of candle wax removalists, simply by viewing one of these delightful videos.

Ultimately, ‘ranking tactics’ inevitably create a domino effect on videos, where by the more popular become more readily viewed and increase their significance in search results, whilst those that don’t get as many views remain unnoticed. According to Van Dijck (2009), if we simply follow trends to feel included in an online community, then perhaps we aren’t really participating at all.
And just incase it ever happens to you, or if your mum can be just as terrifying as mine, here you go…

That video saves lives.

REFERENCES:

Van Dijck, José. ‘Users Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content’, Media, Culture and Society 31 (2009): p41-58