This week’s readings in Media Access encompass further scholarship that attempts to address the conditions that help to contribute to the existing gap in technological access, use, or interpretation. Many ideas are well supported, though there are some ideas I have questions about.
McCrery and Newhagen (2004) examine the relationship between the process sphere and the opinion sphere in political communication. They find a less than surprising situation where participants in the political process, highly engaged citizens, and lobbyists are highly attentive to the media. The review of literature they offer in advance of their report suggests citizens who utilize the Internet for political information or communication never utilize the information gathered or disseminated in public discussion. I do not share their position on the Internet’s role in civic and political discourse.
It is my impression that those who engage in political discussion via Internet-based mediums, like blogs or chat rooms are highly efficacious citizens engaging in political discourse. It may be true that politicians do not read blogs like MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org), the Huffington Post (http://huffingtonpost.com), or the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com) when they cover major political events. McCrery and Newhagen (2004) also state in their study, however, that the staff members of the politicians covered are probably reading these blogs and monitoring what is discussed to keep the policymakers informed. This seems indicative of civic and political discourse using the Internet. By the scholars’ admissions, it seems to connect with policymakers, at least through their staff members.
Another issue in question in the readings is the idea of interactivity and how it can impact political participation. Hofstetter (2004) makes the argument that perceived interactivity is critical in understanding the appeal of political talk radio, noting the respondents rank it behind the telephone and Internet in terms of interactivity. He also makes note of the idea that the process of participating is highly screened and leaves little opportunity for citizens to actually engage directly with the talk show hosts or other political pundits on the show. Thinking about it this way, how does this provide citizens with an interactive experience that truly helps them participate in the discourse? Is it more important to make citizens feel like they participate in the process than to allow them to actually engage in it?
It seems that blogging, with the proper applied effort, is a more effective means of interacting in the political process. Perhaps no one will read it, but citizens are putting their thoughts out there in a forum where other citizens or policymakers can read about their ideas and perhaps use it to inform their perspective.
Hofstetter (2004) makes a very interesting point that the level of interactivity that a person perceives will ultimately hinder their ability to discern the credibility. It seems highly questionable that citizens might possibly take a person like Rush Limbaugh at face value (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/).
Is it more likely to consider, however, that the perception of credibility from listeners has more to do with their political viewpoints and that they are listening to talk show hosts or reading the blogs of writers who they identify with politically and ideologically? Perhaps a selective exposure (Klapper, 1960) approach to research is more appropriate in addressing this issue than perceptions of credibility.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Media Access Observations and Comments 9/20/07
Part II of Media Access offers several studies that aim to tease out the less-frequently explored area of the psychological dispositions that might help to explain the digital divide in terms of Internet access, use, and comprehension. There are several positive elements in the studies, as well as some areas that merit further explanation or exploration.
Grabe and Kamhawi (2004) explore how demographic variables interact with other conditions in influencing media access, use, comprehension, and perceived trust of information available on the Web. I did come away with a couple of concerns about their study. First, they measure adults who have some high school education or only a high school degree against adults who are working on graduate degrees to evaluate how education influences media use, comprehension, and trust of information. This seems to be a problematic split, considering the percentage of adults who have completed a Bachelor’s degree that are not examined as a group. It would seem to me that gathering data on college graduates at the Bachelor’s degree level is necessary here for a more representative sample of adults.
The authors are also surprised by the finding that people with higher levels of education trust the news and information provided on the Internet less than do adults with lower levels of education. Would it not stand to reason that as people gain further knowledge of the world around them, they would be more skeptical of the information handed to them? We currently teach undergraduate journalism majors to seek the truth and to question sources thoroughly in order to confirm the validity of the information. Perhaps this area of examination needs further analysis for reasons behind why the educated trust the information less than do lower educated consumers.
Several of the scholars in this section of the book make sound observations about elements we do not commonly address when discussing digital divide research. One idea is that consumers can become easily confused when adjusting to a new form of media like the Internet because of the complexity that some Web sites entail. Consumers who are used to passive interactivity (like flipping through channels on a television) might find themselves lost when dealing with any one of the news Web sites on the Internet that uses dozens of hyperlinks on their front page. Take a look at the daily postings on CNN's Web site (http://www.cnn.com/) or on the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/), and it is apparent that their is merit in the sholars' arguments about complexity.
Rojas et al. (2004) provide an interesting observation about why minorities in an Austin high school were having trouble making use of the Internet in their everyday lives. They find that some of the minorities might interact more readily if the content was in Spanish. This suggests that concern over access might be trumped by the need for foreign language content (or at least training for users in how to access the appropriate content). Further study on the language barrier may help clarify part of the problem.
The aforementioned findings are supported in the work of Youtie, Shapira, and Laudeman (2004). They suggest that in spite of free access, use still lagged in a traditional digital divide community. The authors reference Blacksburg’s Electronic Village (http://www.bev.net/). The LaGrange community findings were inconsistent with those of Blacksburg (Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2001).
I believe there are two reasons that might explain the disparity. First, Blacksburg is a community that is well linked to a nationally-recognized University that specializes in technological education, unlike LaGrange. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that there might be a more active educational role in the technological integration process. In addition, Virginia Tech (http://www.vt.edu/) maintains a very strong town-gown relationship with the town of Blacksburg, providing many service and education opportunities to the community. It is reasonable to hypothesize that this interconnection between the two enhances the Internet access, participation, and comprehension of the citizens. Further examples of this interconnection currently exist in the Blacksburg and Virginia Tech community.
Blacksburg now maintains a citizen journalism Web page where Virginia Tech students and Blacksburg citizens provide content, called Planet Blacksburg (http://www.planetblacksburg.com/). The Planet Blacksburg project is similar to Lew Friedland’s Madison Commons at the University of Wisconsin (http://www.madisoncommons.org/). While Planet Blacksburg is more student-oriented than the Commons, it further illustrates the kind of connected relationship Blacksburg has with the University. If LaGrange were the host city for a major University, it might help to decrease the town’s digital divide in the same way previous scholars have found in Blacksburg (Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2001).
Grabe and Kamhawi (2004) explore how demographic variables interact with other conditions in influencing media access, use, comprehension, and perceived trust of information available on the Web. I did come away with a couple of concerns about their study. First, they measure adults who have some high school education or only a high school degree against adults who are working on graduate degrees to evaluate how education influences media use, comprehension, and trust of information. This seems to be a problematic split, considering the percentage of adults who have completed a Bachelor’s degree that are not examined as a group. It would seem to me that gathering data on college graduates at the Bachelor’s degree level is necessary here for a more representative sample of adults.
The authors are also surprised by the finding that people with higher levels of education trust the news and information provided on the Internet less than do adults with lower levels of education. Would it not stand to reason that as people gain further knowledge of the world around them, they would be more skeptical of the information handed to them? We currently teach undergraduate journalism majors to seek the truth and to question sources thoroughly in order to confirm the validity of the information. Perhaps this area of examination needs further analysis for reasons behind why the educated trust the information less than do lower educated consumers.
Several of the scholars in this section of the book make sound observations about elements we do not commonly address when discussing digital divide research. One idea is that consumers can become easily confused when adjusting to a new form of media like the Internet because of the complexity that some Web sites entail. Consumers who are used to passive interactivity (like flipping through channels on a television) might find themselves lost when dealing with any one of the news Web sites on the Internet that uses dozens of hyperlinks on their front page. Take a look at the daily postings on CNN's Web site (http://www.cnn.com/) or on the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/), and it is apparent that their is merit in the sholars' arguments about complexity.
Rojas et al. (2004) provide an interesting observation about why minorities in an Austin high school were having trouble making use of the Internet in their everyday lives. They find that some of the minorities might interact more readily if the content was in Spanish. This suggests that concern over access might be trumped by the need for foreign language content (or at least training for users in how to access the appropriate content). Further study on the language barrier may help clarify part of the problem.
The aforementioned findings are supported in the work of Youtie, Shapira, and Laudeman (2004). They suggest that in spite of free access, use still lagged in a traditional digital divide community. The authors reference Blacksburg’s Electronic Village (http://www.bev.net/). The LaGrange community findings were inconsistent with those of Blacksburg (Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2001).
I believe there are two reasons that might explain the disparity. First, Blacksburg is a community that is well linked to a nationally-recognized University that specializes in technological education, unlike LaGrange. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that there might be a more active educational role in the technological integration process. In addition, Virginia Tech (http://www.vt.edu/) maintains a very strong town-gown relationship with the town of Blacksburg, providing many service and education opportunities to the community. It is reasonable to hypothesize that this interconnection between the two enhances the Internet access, participation, and comprehension of the citizens. Further examples of this interconnection currently exist in the Blacksburg and Virginia Tech community.
Blacksburg now maintains a citizen journalism Web page where Virginia Tech students and Blacksburg citizens provide content, called Planet Blacksburg (http://www.planetblacksburg.com/). The Planet Blacksburg project is similar to Lew Friedland’s Madison Commons at the University of Wisconsin (http://www.madisoncommons.org/). While Planet Blacksburg is more student-oriented than the Commons, it further illustrates the kind of connected relationship Blacksburg has with the University. If LaGrange were the host city for a major University, it might help to decrease the town’s digital divide in the same way previous scholars have found in Blacksburg (Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2001).
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Cyberculture Research Methodology & Multiple Realities
This week’s readings from Critical Cyberculture Studies offer an interesting mix of ideas about how to research issues in the discipline, whether it involves what is studied, how it is studied, and why it will improve what we learn in the discipline. Baym (2006) puts together what could be considered a reasonable essay on how to qualitatively study the Internet. While some paragraphs early in the chapter more closely resemble a rant of a disgruntled conference reviewer, she offers some perspectives that seem tautological if the reader has any methodological experience.
She makes note that a problem in Internet research is the lack of consideration for existing literature and how every scholar claiming they have found something groundbreaking in Internet research rings hollow, which suggests that scholars are not effectively reviewing literature in order to inform their research. She also notes, however, that this may in fact be due to the absence of dedicated Internet research journals. I would argue that their absence is a problem, but that our current system of Internet-based research indices permits us to look across a broader spectrum of journals coming from a variety of perspectives. This suggests that scholars that do not thoroughly research the relevant scholarship have little room for excuses about what is absent.
Baym also argues that a common problem in Internet research is that scholars make unsubstantiated claims that they are observing consistent trends without sufficient longitudinal research data. Granted, researchers need to walk a careful line when making claims on data that is only a glimpse of what could be a much larger picture. I do, however, question the nature of this problem. In order to talk about trends, Baym argues we need sufficient longitudinal data to discuss trends. If we are conducting research on Internet-based mediums that may be less than a year old, can we make claims of a trend? Perhaps the mediums we can research longitudinally on the Internet are too few for researchers to discuss trends as anything other than preliminary, with the exception of mediums meant for a short period of time (e.g. candidate Web sites during elections).
Fung (2006) examines the relationship between Cyberlife and Real life which I think offers some insights in how it explores our relationships and need to form communities and relationships on the Internet regardless of how many relationships we have in real life. He concerns himself with the commercial evils that are pervading artificial realities. I worry about how we separate our real existences from our artificial realities. A commonly explored realities in the news today is secondlife.org. There are articles talking about how individuals around the world are negotiating two lives, while utilizing the technology to promote their company’s products, like this woman in Oregon (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/09/10/c1.cr.secondlife.0910.p1.php?section=cityregion). If you are concerned about the blurring of reality and artificial lives, then it is hard to find comfort in the recent news that HBO purchased the rights to air a documentary on Second Life (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/09/second_life_and_hbo_uhoh.html). If we are concerned about blurring the lines of reality, how do we negotiate a real-world documentary about the artificial lives of real people?
Another medium that is not without its problems is the World of Warcraft (WoW) role playing game. Previous experience with roommates leaves me seeing it as Dungeons and Dragons with a modem, but others claim it can help your lives as much as hurt them. Our own Daily Reveille covered a story this past year detailing how a young LSU student used WoW to provide relief from the real world in the aftermath of a sexual assault (http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2007/02/09/Opinion/warcraft.Is.More.Than.Just.A.Game-2709255.shtml). Is this beneficial, or too much of an escape? Perhaps it is too early to say. South Park has even commented on the detriments of WoW to everyday life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jukb-gz8gS0).
She makes note that a problem in Internet research is the lack of consideration for existing literature and how every scholar claiming they have found something groundbreaking in Internet research rings hollow, which suggests that scholars are not effectively reviewing literature in order to inform their research. She also notes, however, that this may in fact be due to the absence of dedicated Internet research journals. I would argue that their absence is a problem, but that our current system of Internet-based research indices permits us to look across a broader spectrum of journals coming from a variety of perspectives. This suggests that scholars that do not thoroughly research the relevant scholarship have little room for excuses about what is absent.
Baym also argues that a common problem in Internet research is that scholars make unsubstantiated claims that they are observing consistent trends without sufficient longitudinal research data. Granted, researchers need to walk a careful line when making claims on data that is only a glimpse of what could be a much larger picture. I do, however, question the nature of this problem. In order to talk about trends, Baym argues we need sufficient longitudinal data to discuss trends. If we are conducting research on Internet-based mediums that may be less than a year old, can we make claims of a trend? Perhaps the mediums we can research longitudinally on the Internet are too few for researchers to discuss trends as anything other than preliminary, with the exception of mediums meant for a short period of time (e.g. candidate Web sites during elections).
Fung (2006) examines the relationship between Cyberlife and Real life which I think offers some insights in how it explores our relationships and need to form communities and relationships on the Internet regardless of how many relationships we have in real life. He concerns himself with the commercial evils that are pervading artificial realities. I worry about how we separate our real existences from our artificial realities. A commonly explored realities in the news today is secondlife.org. There are articles talking about how individuals around the world are negotiating two lives, while utilizing the technology to promote their company’s products, like this woman in Oregon (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/09/10/c1.cr.secondlife.0910.p1.php?section=cityregion). If you are concerned about the blurring of reality and artificial lives, then it is hard to find comfort in the recent news that HBO purchased the rights to air a documentary on Second Life (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/09/second_life_and_hbo_uhoh.html). If we are concerned about blurring the lines of reality, how do we negotiate a real-world documentary about the artificial lives of real people?
Another medium that is not without its problems is the World of Warcraft (WoW) role playing game. Previous experience with roommates leaves me seeing it as Dungeons and Dragons with a modem, but others claim it can help your lives as much as hurt them. Our own Daily Reveille covered a story this past year detailing how a young LSU student used WoW to provide relief from the real world in the aftermath of a sexual assault (http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2007/02/09/Opinion/warcraft.Is.More.Than.Just.A.Game-2709255.shtml). Is this beneficial, or too much of an escape? Perhaps it is too early to say. South Park has even commented on the detriments of WoW to everyday life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jukb-gz8gS0).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)