Second Life

The Future of Newspapers and Education

Newspapers;

“Five years ago, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. predicted that in five years, newspapers would no longer exist in print form.” It is obvious that Sulzberger’s prediction was wrong, since newspapers are still alive and kicking. But, newspapers are losing money.

Technology has a big impact on today’s newspapers. “Gabor Steingart, Washington bureau chief for the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel believes newspapers are destroying their own business model by giving away content for free online but failing to find alternative sources of income.” That is true. How are newspapers supposed to make money if they are freely giving away their content online? Would you rather pay for a few pieces of paper, or hop on the internet and get the same news for free? The answer seems relatively obvious.

Mark Little states, “newspapers are putting their news on the web, which in the end undermines them because they lose revenue from selling subscriptions of the hard copy.” Essentially, news will be free. There does not seem to be any disagreement amongst most individuals where the news will end up; on the internet.

The internet has brought about many issues for the newspaper; the internet is quicker, cheaper and up-to-date. Readers are bypassing the newspaper for the internet, because it simply makes more sense.

What does this mean for the journalists? While some are scrambling to figure out how to re-attract the reader’s attention to newspapers, other journalists are ‘growing with the technology’.

“Allison Silver called online reporting ‘a way of restoring trust to the reader, a way of creating that bond between reader and reporter, because there’s a level of transparency on the Internet that isn’t possible in print.’ An Internet story is a continuous narrative, she said, citing links to information that allow readers to follow the reporting.”

This makes me wonder, how are we supposed to find the news in the noise on the internet?

Mike Little says that with the rise in online news that the news mission is to “sort the news from the noise, challenge prejudice instead of encouraging it, make good journalism good business.” Have journalists not always done this even before the internet? Yes.

Mark Little also mentions social networks, and how they have a big influence on today’s news. I do not believe that social networks will ever ‘beat out’ newspapers or online news from legitimate sources. I do not want to get my news from an individual on twitter. I want to get it from a legitimate journalist. As a journalism minor, I know how much time, research and consideration goes into a news story. Why would I go on twitter to get my news when I can go to the New York Times?

Mark Little says, “Nobody knows for certain…everything that people tell you about news will change. News has to future proof itself. News is dead the way it was, but there is an incredible future in it.”

I disagree; newspapers are not dead. Brian Steffens also disagrees. “If I’m to believe the national media, newspapers are dead or dying. What do they base that on?” It is hard for us to know where the future of news is headed, but the journalists inside of me feels that newspapers are not going away now, or ever.

Education;

Howard Rheingold in his article “Attention and Other 21^st-Century Media Literacies” says, “The developments brought about by technology allow for new possibilities. We are seeing trends in education toward distributed, collaborative models of learning.”

It is no secret that technology has had a major impact on our society. It has changed our way of life; socially, mentally and even physically. Another aspect of our world that is being changed because of the technology age is education. We are able to seek out information quickly on the internet. We can access knowledge with our fingertips.

This ‘education revolution’ has brought about online learning. You can receive a college degree through the computer; you don’t even have to get out of your pajamas. There are pros of an online education.

Ian Jukes gives four pros of online education in his article “From Gutenberg, to Gates, to Google”.
1. Enhanced access.

2. Complete freedom; being able to learn wherever the learner is at that moment.

3. Transparent communities; for them the technologies are transparent because they are completely comfortable with. It allows us to engage them in their comfort zone and native language.

4. Personal comfort; the problem with the current educational system is that there is simply not enough flexibility to customize learning to the needs of each individual. New synercative technologies will break these barriers because can empower individuals to learn at their own pace so that students do not have to be intimidated by the fact that others learn at a quicker rate or seem to know more.

4. Individual empowerment; power has switched from the teacher to the learner.

While all four of these ‘perks’ seem like a fine reason to switch to an online education, there are also negatives. Martin Ryder said, “To the extent that educators want to pursue the educational significance of new literacies, the very stuff of new literacies generates a host of issues.”

1. For the reader, a fundamental constraint has to do with the accuracy, veracity and reliability of online information.

2. Lack of social contact.

3. The fundamental characteristic of the Internet is that it cannot be controlled.

Do the pros outweigh the cons of on online education? At this point in time I believe they do. Individuals who were unable to take the time to travel to class can now get a degree from their home. Individuals who were uncomfortable in a crowded room of peers can now sit comfortably in front of their computer. Individuals who work full-time now have more power to decide on when they can learn.

But, my major concern is the social aspect. Our society is already becoming more and more socially ‘awkward’. We would rather make friends on the internet then in the real world. As humans we need to be social, and how are we going to do that if we can do everything from our homes?

I have taken two online courses during my college education. One semester at Broome Community college I was enrolled in seven classes. Five were on campus, while the other two were online courses. I actually really enjoyed taking the online courses, more specifically my creative writing class. I did feel like I had more freedom and personal comfort. There were things that I wrote and had to share with the class that I would have been uncomfortable with if I had been in front of them, face-to-face. At one point I highly considered completing my bachelor’s degree online, but there was one important thing I felt I would miss out on; the social aspect. My college friends and even professors have helped shape me into the person I am today. I have made contacts for future job opportunities and have made life-long friends. If I had instead received my college degree online I would have been a completely different person, and I feel I would not have liked who I would have become.

As Ian Jukes stated, “If we are going to adequately prepare for tomorrow, it’s critical that educational institutions at all levels begin to earnestly working together to share ideas, information & trends band through state and national infrastructure to provide the best, fastest and most efficient services – collaboration is the only way to compete.”

We have no idea what the future will bring for education, but one thing is certain. Our society will continue to seek out ways to bring knowledge to every single individual on this planet, and an online education might be a good start.

Why The Facts No Longer Matter

As Chris Hedge states, “A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion.”

What is truth? Truth is defined as a fact that has been verified. Truth is defined as conformity to reality or actuality. Truth is defined as accuracy. So, what is illusion? Illusion is defined as an erroneous mental representation. An illusion is defined as something many people believe that is false. An illusion is defined as a fantasy.

Today’s society has fallen victim to fantasy; to illusions, but why is our world veering further and further away from the real? What happens if this continues? First, we have to figure out why individuals are beginning to become unmoored from reality. Is it because of corporations and businesses? Is new media to blame? Or are we moving farther away from the truth because we, as a society, have started this ‘fantasy movement’? It seems that all three of these ‘ideas’ are a contributing factor to the issue of illusion in today’s world.

One of the five points Wong makes in his article, “5 Reasons the Future Will Be Ruled by BS” is that in order to stay afloat, businesses have to pretend unlimited goods are limited. Wong defines this as FARTS; forced ARTificial scarcity. In summary, the businesses just make stuff up. They tell us that there is only a certain number of the newest phone in current circulation, or that the latest iPod will only be available to an exclusive number of individuals. Is what the businesses tell us true? No. How does that affect our society? It makes us believe the illusions that businesses have conspired, which in the end, results in our society moving farther away from the truth. Use of illusion by businesses is very effective, but it is also very dangerous. In the end, the illusions that businesses have made will impact of society’s ability to trust everyone and everything.

New media is interactive digital media. New media is the internet, cell phones, laptops and other new technologies. These new technologies have contributed to the movement from truth to illusion. How often have you been searching the web and found something you thought was untrue? It has probably happened at least once to every individual on the planet. How does this false information end up on the internet? Someone or something put it there. “The search for truth becomes irrelevant,” states Chris Hedges. How did the search become irrelevant? It is becoming irrelevant because it is impossible to find the truth. Is new media partially to blame for this movement to the unreal? I believe it is, because now there are various ways to seek out information and with anonymous individuals leaving their mark on the internet, our society has a difficult time discovering the truth. This results in our society simply not caring; we do not want to go through the hassle of finding the truth. In the end, we result to just making stuff up. If this continues to happen, we can say goodbye to truth. Truth will just be a long forgotten word that you can find in the dictionary.

Majoo asks, “How can so many people who live in the same place see the world so differently?” One answer to his question is that individuals believe what they want to, even if the facts are right before their eyes. Simply put, people are stubborn. But, another reason could because we all receive different information. “…pollsters and political researchers have begun to document a fundamental shift in the way Americans are thinking about news. No longer are we merely holding opinions different from one another; we’re also holding different facts.” It is difficult to prove whose facts are actually the truth. Another factor in the spread of illusions is that people openly spread these false impressions. Some people simply do not want to believe that what is true is real, so they spread lies. Once these lies reach another person, and another person and these people believe the illusion, it makes it difficult to tell them the truth. The dilemma is that this cannot be stopped; lies will always be spread, and someone will always believe them.

What will happen if we become unmoored from the real? That is a difficult question to answer. But, I can say that if this development continues our society could be a part of an era full of chaos. A world without truth would be a difficult world to live in. “The culture of illusion, one of happy thoughts, manipulated emotions, and trust in the beneficence of power, means we sing along with the chorus or are instantly disappeared from view like those on a reality show.”

Brian M. Lowe, a sociology professor, discussed with us the idea of the spectacle. Manjoo believes that the spectacle contributes to heightened polarization. While Hedges contributes the spectacle to the decline of literacy, narcissist, celebrity culture, and pseudo-events. In general spectacle refers to an event that is memorable for the appearance it creates.

Spectacle is a significant tool that has been used by animal advocates. Animal adversaries use imagery to make the public more aware of animal cruelty. For example, they used images of ducks in horrendous conditions to promote the ban of foie gras. They also successfully used imagery to help primates in a scientific lab that researched head injuries.

The animal adversaries essentially created a spectacle; they used visuals to help spread their cause. They individualized the primates, they used narratives, they brought celebrities to their cause, and they left an impact on the public.

Spectacle is not going away. There is an ease of access to information, because social media is readily accessible. There is an agenda-setting; media does not tell us what to think, but what to think about. It is way for the media to tell us what is important.

Maybe, one day we will be able to see what the media is doing to us; how it is influencing us. But, this can only happen when we can look past the spectacle. When we can see past the images that awe us and make up our own minds, then we will have beaten the media's influence. We will then be able to think for ourselves.

"Our World Digitized", Henry Jenkins, and Danah Boyd

“Our World Digitized: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly” began with the moderator Henry Jenkins, a well-known professor of Comparative Media Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology asking a question. Jenkins asks, “How do we measure the success or failure of digital democracy?” That is a good question. Another good question to ask is, can digital democracy be measured at all? “Our World Digitized” seeks out an answer to that question, and many others, in the Internet Age. Jenkins asks questions about free expression, fragmentation, and the importance of Wikipedia. What are the potentials of democracy as we continue moving towards a deeper dependence on the digital world, and will we be happy with the outcome?

Jenkins quotes passages from both speakers’ books. Jenkins first quotes from Cass Sunstein’s novel. Sunstein is the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, Law School and Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Sunstein states in his novel,

“Any well functioning society depends on relationships of trust and reciprocity, in which people see their fellow citizens as potential allies, willing to help, and deserving of help when help is needed…a well functioning society of free expression must have two distinct requirements: first, people should be exposed to materials they would not have chosen in advance and second, many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences.”

Jenkins goes on to quote the other speaker Yochai Benkler. Benkler is the Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard, and faculty co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Benkler states in his novel,

“The new freedom holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and in an increasingly information-dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere.”

How do these quotes reflect what Sunstein and Benkler think about free expression? Sunstein seems more skeptical of free expression, while Benkler seems more open and convinced that the internet is allowing for more personal freedom. Benkler believes that the digital democracy allows people to participate; they can pursue information. Sunstein believes that many people just take in information and do not participate. In today’s society the internet is flooded with information. Our society does not just sit back and soak in the information that is thrown at us. We instead search the internet for facts; and while we are seeking out information we are leaving our personal mark in the digital world.

In the article “Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media,” Danah Boyd states,

“The opportunities for media creation have been rising for decades, but the Internet provided new mechanisms through which people could make their own content available. From blogging to social network sites to media sharing sites to sites that provide social streams, we are seeing countless ways in which a motivated individual can make their personal content available.”

Our society does participate on the internet, because our society, as Boyd said, is motivated.

“In a networked world, people connect to people like themselves. What flows across the network flows through edges of similarity. The ability to connect to others like us allows us to flow information across space and time in impressively new ways…”

Boyd describes what Bekler calls clusters of communities of interests; Bekler’s research shows that there is not a ‘daily me’ on the internet. Instead the internet is creating a ‘daily us’. “…points within a network become linked to other networks, resulting in shard communities of interest. This implies not fragmentation but a balance between free choices and shard concerns,” stated Bekler. Sunstein referenced a study on blogging that found that conservatives link only with other conservatives, which was the same result for liberals. Sunstein stated, “this is not an example of a well-functioning online public sphere.” Bekler has a brighter outlook on the potential fragmentation of the internet, while Sunstein has doubts on a balanced digital world. It seems the question of fragmentation is too difficult to answer. How are we to know if individuals will continue to ‘cluster’? How are we to know if our society will open up to new ideas and branch out on the internet? We cannot and will not know the answer, but I believe that a healthy democracy does mean looking at the information from various angles. If the internet continues to create these ‘clusters of communities’ then we will begin to potentially only see two-sides of the story. How is that a healthy democracy?

“Walking along some street, you see a person, interaction, building that stuns you. If you really look, the fertility and surprise of that will alter what you’re interested in, what you care about, your aesthetic and even political sense.” Sunstein imagines a digital world designed for interaction; a digital world of interaction that would promote collaboration and prevent lies and cruelty. Benkler wants the world to see the internet as an opportunity for involvement and participation. “It’s not just sitting in front of the TV, cursing.” Benkler wants people to practice. He wants our society to have an attitude of seeking, finding and using. It is hard to disagree with either of these men’s visions of the future of our society and the internet. In the end, they both desire the same thing; for our society to be involved in the digital world. More and more people are becoming involved in the digital world; the amount of individuals who use or have access to the internet grows every day. One day our whole world could be connected to the internet, and maybe everyone will practice and participate as Benkler stated. Sunstein’s image of an interactive digital world may also come true, but it is hard to imagine a world without lies and cruelty. While his image is desirable, it seems highly implausible.

As Jenkins states in his video, “Old media is dying.” Jenkins knows that the world of old media is ending and the new media world is just beginning. What does that mean for us? It means we must learn these new social skills. Why does new media literacy matter? It matters because it is a big part of today’s culture. Our society has Facebook to stay connected with ‘friends’. We have Twitter to follow celebrities and to “speak in public with a targeted audience explicitly stated.” The internet has given us the power to look into other people’s lives. “The public and networked nature of the Internet creates the potential for visibility.” We have these abilities but we must learn how to use them; we must become literate in new media in order to better understand the future of the digital world.