MC 7019: A Semester in Perspective

Well, as the term closes, we are asked to look back on the term and reflect on the lessons learned, did not learn, and what we would have liked to learn. This blog entry will address what I took from the course, the elements I perhaps did not take away from the course, and the elements I would have liked to take from the course. If anything, I hope the entry serves as a form of feedback for our professor and will help him in planning future courses.

Lessons Learned:

The most important element I am taking away from MC 7019 is an understanding of the social, economic, and political motives for the proliferation of new media technologies in our society. From a social perspective, particularly in the view of Howard and Jones (2004), the Internet is helping society to develop and effective channel for people to share their interests, problems, and ideas globally. The readings provide a variety of examples for us of effective forms of community deriving from the Internet that may seem both very connected and divided at the same time.

Our readings in Convergence Culture explain that movie franchises like The Matrix, Star Wars, and television shows like American Idol all utilize a multimedia approach to presenting content in order to tell a story. Jenkins (2006) tells us about how communities of people work together through new media channels to understand meaning, utilize, or even contribute creatively to each of the franchises. He suggests that this provides an interesting potential model for political participation that is driven more by consumer culture than a civic mindset. The real motive behind these approaches, however, is to boost sales and drive profit margins in each case by the respective production companies.

In both of the Howard books, we looked at how political campaigns utilize technology to push their campaigns. Specifically, we gained an understanding that campaigns lack political specialists who can utilize the technology effectively. To counteract this deficiency, we see campaigns hire specialists from various technical backgrounds that can apply their talents to campaign Web sites and create the sort of strategic connections that candidates are looking for. In the campaign process, however, we see potential areas of conflict between the technical advisers and the campaign organizers. In this way, their is the potential for conflict between the old way of running campaigns, whether social or political, and the innovative approach that campaigns have to engage in today to be effective.

We also get the sense from Montgomery's (2006) book that the up and coming generation of technology users will be the most savvy with emerging technologies. Their technical aptitude will allow them to use the technology to form social communities, for entertainment sources, and to create political advocacy channels. What the reading also illustrated is that while our kids may be the most savvy, they may also be the most at risk. Hardly a new debate, children's safety is argued with the emergence of every new form of entertainment media since the emergence of film as a mainstream form of entertainment in the 1920's.

The course has been a great resource for me to think about the primary social, political, and economic motives behind advancing the use of new media in society. Along with getting into the habit of keeping a weekly blog, this is probably the most prominent set of lessons I have taken from the course this year.

What I Did Not Learn (Or Un-Learned):

I would make the argument that this course was particularly useful in providing us with a means to overcome some faulty preconceived notions we may have had going into the course. In particular, I think we spent a great deal of time breaking down our sense of the obvious nature of the "digital divide" and on eliminating the commonly Utopian view of the Internet.

Personally, I came into this course with a simple sense that the Internet had the potential to help us accomplish things we never though possible. As I read further and we discussed issues, I came away with the sense that its entirely feasible that the Internet can open some doors for us to express views, present material, or to change mindsets. That said, I also came to realize how important all of the contributing factors like access, exposure, and technological capability were in allowing a person to get a desired message out to the public. In addition to these factors, I learned to balance a sense of the educational benefits for children that the Internet provides with the potential dangers of online predators and false information.

In the process of discussing the "digital divide," I think the class as a group came to see the issue as a much broader concept that cuts across racial, socioeconomic, and psychological factors and cannot be summed into anyone element that creates a divide. In fact, I would suspect that we as a group are far less receptive to the term divide as its a much broader problem in many different areas.

What I would have liked to learn:

I guess the one element I wanted to hear more about was how technology really drives policy in a U.S. and global perspective. I had a sense it might come in more throughout the course than it did, and now that we are wrapping up, I feel as though we are missing a week devoted to discussing how technology fundamentally drives policy.

If there is one other element I might like to change, it would be to find a way to reduce the two weeks of exposure we got to the "digital divide." The conversation in that time seemed to get more stagnant as we worked our way through the readings and it made for a very cyclical set of arguments.

Looking back on this course, I think the fondest element I have coming away is that I can pick up on the elements we talked about each week in what I see on the Internet or when I speak with family or friends. Perhaps the strongest example for me that we are in a very "tech savvy" period was the recent phone call I received from my mother in which she proudly proclaimed, "I wanted you to be the first person I called on my iPhone!"

Will wonders never cease? I do not know, but my sense is if my mother at 57 years can learn to adapt, then perhaps other cynics like Lyle will in time, too. So, with that in mind, perhaps there is a touch of Utopia in all of this for us. In the end, though, you have to keep it in perspective.

More Legislation or More Talk?: Contributing Factors to the Mindset of the "Digital Generation"

Montgomery’s (2007) Generation Digital paints a divisive image of the potential role of new media in the lives of America’s youth as a result of the commercial and political influences that influence media consumption. Central to her argument is the idea that for all of the potential positive elements that new media can shepherd into a young person’s life, there are many negative consequences related to new media use. I believe, however, that Montgomery may be misappropriating an essential point in her analysis. Specifically, the role parents can play in their children's lives.

Montgomery (2007) points towards busy parents and two-income households as a driving force for teenagers and “tweeners” gaining an advanced sense of maturity, holding jobs and dispensable income, and seeking identity and interaction through new media channels like blogs, Web sites, or chat programs. While I agree with her on these points, I also believe that their absence is a mitigating factor in some of the positive and negative outlets that new media provide to young people.

A core discussion throughout the book is the risks that face children in the new media conduits they use. Montgomery (2007) consistently aligns parents’ concerns with their busy lifestyle and inability to monitor their children effectively. There is a consistent pattern that emerges in each of the risk conditions that follow. Fear of exposure to pornography driven by a child’s ability to navigate the Internet led to parents demanding functional filter software for their computers and government legislation to push censorship forward. Concerns about marketing Web sites being able to effectively gather personal information on children of all ages without parental consent, as well as other risks associated with disseminating such information drove parents to demand government intervention to regulate marketers’ ethical standards in gathering data. Even Montgomery’s discussion of AIM and Internet chat use makes the assertion that parents did not know and that kids were not readily volunteering the information about their Internet interactions. Each of these discussions frame parents as hapless victims of the deceptive actions of new media or their kids. This seems to ignore the possibility that perhaps the parents missed the point in each case. In each situation, they demand that someone else step in and ensure their children’s safety.

I understand parents who can not be there making this demand. From another perspective, however, it seems like parents who can be there are not presenting the critical first line of defense for their kids: themselves. Anecdotally speaking, stepping into a room, asking what your kids are doing, and not taking omissions or lies for answers always seemed to keep my siblings and I out of trouble as teenagers on the Internet. Perhaps part of the danger of the Internet is a growing sense of absentee parenting that Montgomery (2007) references in Chapter 8 when she speaks about Postman’s (1994) stance that family breakdowns are leading to digital immersion by young people. In this sense, parents and conservative advocacy groups may need to be more proactive with teenagers and “tweeners” before looking for the guiding hand of the federal government.

This need to grow up fast is not without its benefits, however, as Montgomery (2007) points out. Social marketing campaigns help give kids essential information in sex education and about smoking that might not reach them in any other way, potentially improving the quality of their lives. AIM helps kids learn to potentially interact in difficult social situations. New media is becoming a conduit for teenagers to engage in political and social issues in an effective and proactive manner, despite the potential negative effects of commercial influence. New media provide children with efficient ways to research issues, learn, interact, participate, protest, and to be active members of the citizenry. Although Montgomery does suspect that the threat of the digital divide and commercial influence may hinder the “digital generation” from maximizing their potential, many things are encouraging. It is quite possible that the words of Peter Townshend of The Who were quite prophetic when he penned, “The Kids Are Alright.”

Perspectives on the Arguments of Free Culture

Lessig (2004) argues in Free Culture that citizens are now unable to have the same forms of creative output that this country saw in the nineteenth and twentieth century because of the current expansion of scope and restriction in copyright regulations. He makes these arguments through the use of several stories about past innovations that were the result of an innovative minds building on the previous works of artists who did not possess the current copyright restrictions. Among the more prominent examples offered are Walt Disney’s use of previous silent films and Grimm’s’ Fairy Tales to construct the Disney Franchise as we currently know it and the development of Kodak’s personal camera technology. Lessig labels this kind of use as creative and beneficial to our culture. At firs glance, it seems a bit unfair to the Grimms and Buster Keaton that Disney took their creative ideas, profited from them, and gave them no legitimate acknowledgement in his final product. Their can be an argument made for use on the basis that Disney was creating a parody of Keaton’s work, but I see no such correlation with the Grimms’ fairy tales.

To illustrate the development of our current copyright system, Lessig (2004) references the hypocritical lobbying of companies like Disney to protect their creations that built on the previously unprotected creative works that Disney creatively “pirated.” I would agree that this practice is hypocritical in the sense that Disney’s corporation would claim that the cartoon likenesses are their intellectual property, even though they are derivative of other people’s writing and development. In my mind, Disney has grounds to protect against any direct use of their content and their images only if they bear no resemblance to the descriptions that the Grimms or Buster Keaton made. I do understand the true motive for such a move, though, as Disney would like to limit potential competition. That said, Disney created a legitimate market replacement for someone else’s work, a violation of fair use in our current legal system.

All discussion of infringement aside, this reading made me curious about what types of creations today’s giants might be leery of. A simple examination of YouTube illustrates some examples. Might George Lucas (or the creative powers behind Monty Python) be concerned about a fan’s creativity in a project like the fan video displayed here? Using similar logic, might the Wachowskis and the Jim Henson estate be concerned about students using their material to create this fan video?

If the people producing such digital videos could create a competing market, Lessig might argue that the creators would litigate. The videos appear to be a parody of each of the previous creative projects. Through this parody, they exercise the same “creativity” that Lessig wants fostered. Moreover, they are not presenting a replacement for Star Wars in the competitive market. When applied to fair use, it would seem that Lucas would have no argument.

Recent Lucas-approved productions have brought fans of the franchise parodies on Seth Green’s Robot Chicken, as well as Seth McFarland’s Family Guy. In light of these productions, perhaps Lucas would prefer such forms of parody go uncontested. Through YouTube, fans are creating a sort of viral marketing for Star Wars that Lucas might not be able to generate from his own Web sites. Moreover, both of the television shows that made Star Wars parodies cooperatively worked with Lucas and were able to do more creatively than previously seemed possible. We have seen other popular science fiction franchises (Star Trek leaps to mind on more than one occasion) work with Family Guy in the past.

In general, I find Lessig’s argument interesting and correct that current copyright regulations are stifling the creativity of media literate citizens. One element I think he could do without is reflecting extensively on his failure in arguing against copyright regulations in front of the Supreme Court. On one hand, a dry recount clearly explaining his stance and the judgments might illuminate the faulty stance of the current court (and his failed arguments) effectively. On the other hand, I feel that Lessig spent far too much time emphasizing his anger with the justices and his failure to stem the tide of constrictive copyright regulations. His commentary on the Eldred litigation makes the previous 208 pages of historical and contextual analysis seem like sour grapes more than the reasonable assessment they really are.