The pursuit of snarkiness, or:

Why I champion Freedom of Speech and yet hate Citizen Journalism

- A study in dichotomy by Matthew Ryan

Throughout the course of my degree in Law and Media Communications at the Queensland University of Technology, I have run up against two ideas that run along a parallel course towards one philosophy, and yet I cannot seem to overcome my distaste for one and my unabashed love for the other – the concept of Freedom of Speech and Citizen Journalism.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads thusly:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Effectively, what the First Amendment conveys upon the citizens of the USA is the freedom of expression, of religion, of the right to free association and the freedom of the press to investigate and report on whatever it sees fit to print. The freedom of expression guaranteed there and elsewhere has enabled people from all walks of life to be able to speak their mind without fear of reprisal. It allows me to scream of the rooftops that Axel Bruns is a tax-cheat and an illegal immigrant, but has epic facial hair. It has allowed the Communist Party in the 50’s to form free of fear, the protesting of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, rigged elections, Apartheid and climate change. It has been used as the justification behind everything from flag burning to neo-Nazism to being able to rail against flag burning and Neo-Nazism. It allows the Brisbane Socialist Alternative Weekly to educate me about "The secret politics of Martin Luther King". For me, personally, it has allowed me to blog freely, swear liberally and listen to the prettiest sound in the world: the dulcet tones of a female Cambridge accent lilting forth from the youth hostels of Brisbane.

Citizen Journalism, then, should be right up my alley. It’s all about free speech, the democratization of news media, and the freedom of the press. And yet I have no use for it. If I want my news, I’ll go to a reputable news outlet, thank you very much. I have nothing against the people who test to see if the pen really is mightier than the sword, I just cannot bring myself to generate any interest in their attempts to cover issues that might very well be important to them but mean little to nothing to me.

Shaye Bowman and Chris Willis, in their report “We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information”, claim that “the intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires”. That’s fine, it really is. But don’t expect me to care about it. Citizen Journalism is responsible for the spread of 9/11 rumors, alligators in the sewers, UFOs, crop circles and the fact that Axel Bruns is a tax cheat and an illegal immigrant. Woodward and Bernstein weren’t citizen journalists. They worked for the Washington Post. Those who are motivated to take up the pen and chronicle the issues that matter to them are usually activists within a community, and are far more prone to abandon even the very pretense of objectivity or adhere to the strict ideals of journalistic ethics. Tom Grubisich, in his study of citizen journalism concludes that “the best citizen journalism sites at the community level buzz with activity. That didn't happen spontaneously. The proprietors of both sites know their communities, are passionately engaged with them and, in their own ways, are not afraid to put on editor's (or motivator's) hats.”

I personally have no use for hyper-localized content, and activist’s blogging about issues that concern them. History will not record the reporting of a lone Afghani in the days of the invasion of Iraq – it will record the motivations behind the opposing forces, the political turmoil and the loss of life. It frustrates me somewhat that in an age of real community interaction, where the internet is becoming a tool for charities, and social interaction is fuelling police actions and investigations, that blogging about micro-issues of a fairly limited frame of importance is being elevated to such an extent that it is being studied in a university degree and being trumpeted as a truly integral part of participatory culture, when it appears to me to be a fringe group pressing a radical agenda. Show me the difference between a Greenie blogging about deforestation in their electorate and a neo-Nazi railing against Judaism. And yet, in its own magical pontification, the concept of freedom of speech validates the greenie, the Nazi, the Jew and the university student.

Bowman, S. and Willis, C. "We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information." 2003, The Media Center at the American Press Institute.

Grubisich, T. "Grassroots journalism: Actual content vs. shining ideal." October 6, 2005, USC Annenberg, Online Journalism Review.

Some good, old fashioned Wiki-truths

Much has been made of the inherent danger of user-generated and “crowdsourced” websites whose information might be perceived as flawed and unreliable. After all, anyone could have written it. The anonymity of the web means that anyone with a (usually free) registered account, time on their hands and an axe to grind can post information, alter information or vandalise open content project without fear or favour.

Wikipedia is always cited as the leading example of potentially deceptive information when it comes to research gathering on the web. Anyone can alter it, anyone can post information that is flagrantly misleading and as a result it is said to be a wholly unreliable source. In spite of recent news about who posts what on Wikipedia, there is still much value to be found in terms of what Wikipedia can offer society, or even just the casual user.

In 2005, a study by UK science magazine “Nature” found that Wikipedia in fact comes very close to the level of accuracy recorded in the traditionally revered Encyclopaedia Britannica. “The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three”, reports “”Nature”. While this in itself was not a peer-reviewed exercise, it was a reputable journalistic magazine which carried out the study. This kind of repeated self-referentialism is always difficult to overcome when debating the merits of free-source, user generated content.

The thing is, though, people do know things. While they may not always show it, everyone knows something about something, and someone will always be willing to step up and tell someone that they’re wrong. Birds of a feather flock together – people who are the same will find ways to communicate and interact. It’s the way of the world. The same rules that apply in the real world apply in the virtual one. Wikipedia itself has put in place measures that protect the integrity of the information that is contained within. Vandalism is usually quickly found and reverted, and according to Wikipedia itself “often before users can tell the difference” and issues and occurrences are often parodied, most notably by comedian Stephen Colbert, who edited his Wikipedia entry live on air.

This kind of open source, user-generated community building will always have its detractors. But despite its shortcoming and its flaws (both real and perceived), Wikipedia remains one of the best examples of a website whose success has been wholly as a result of the contributions of its users and the community that has risen around their creation.

Sweet, sweet freedom.

How is open source work (as an example of community produsage) different from commercial production?

While open source is a community enterprise for the good of those particpating, commercial production is funded primarily from the money made from selling the product. What this means is that open source software stems from a different revenue model, if they have one at all.

Open source exists primarily as a means to keep software free and keep it relevant, and is thus the process for contributing and sharing is a more liberal one. Open source contrbutions are made for the good of all, and are designed to benefit everyone out of the "generosity" of those undertaking the process. Open source promotes the freedom and access to goods, information, design and technology.

However, commercial production promotes that the information, goods, design, technology, etc, comes with the baggage of living in a capitalist society. Money needs to be made, workers/programmers/compilers need to be paid, and shareholders need to be satisfied that their time and money is being well spent.

The differences in approach to content is also markedly different. Because open source software is free to access by its very nature, it becomes easier for people with the knowledge and skill to alter and change the code to tailor the system to their more personal needs, and then to pass on that information or change to other users that might find their changes desirable.

Commerically driven software is mass marketed and designed to protect the company (and it's shareholders). The code is kept hidden by those that write it, and it becomes up to those who have access to it to make the changes that their superviser's think would best help the consumer. However, this is a long and wieldy process, and does not tailor the changes to the individual or even to a specific demographic.

Despite the fact that commercially manufactured and mass-produced software is the market leader in terms of sales and use, occasionally open source software reaches the publics consciousness to enough of a degree that it can take hold. Mozilla Firefox* and the Linux operating system are clear examples of this - they are open source, free to download and to alter as one sees fit. Perhaps because of their free avaiability, and perhaps because of they have successfully tailored their features and options to target a certain demographic - made largely as a result of community participation - they have become widely used pieces of software.

*This post was written using Firefox! ^_^

The Music or the Misery

For as long as there has been music, there have been pirates. But really, what effect, if any, does piracy have on an industry that has been in existence for so long and as of yet has shown no serious detriment suffered? Is piracy really that bad for the music industry? What, exactly, is piracy? How can the industry successfully combat what it perceives as its greatest threat?

Piracy is said to be the unauthorized and illegal infringement of the copyright on audio-visual material. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, music piracy “generally refers to the illegal duplication and distribution of sound recordings”. The most common perception of music piracy in modern times is that of peer to peer (P2P) hared networks, where music is uploaded and shared onto the internet in clear violation of copyright regimes the world over. Part of the music culture is sharing, and P2P software is essentially just that. So, from this, the question must be asked is there a decline in the music industry, and how much effect does piracy and peer to peer sharing has on the industry?

The truth is, the music industry is not dying; it is thriving. The Recording Industry Association of America claims that the world music market is estimated at $40 billion, and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry puts it at $32 billion, neither a figure to scoff at. The perceived mortality of the music industry belies its ability to both survive the moral panics it itself creates. Media moral panics or a reaction by a group of people based on an exaggerated opinion that a certain action, group or idea is detrimental to society. This kind of moral panic is commonplace. The music industry has survived the copying of cassettes and the Napster fiasco – it can survive piracy.

As a result of the so-called “death of the music industry”, the industry itself has developed a new revenue model to help combat what many see as its decline. While compact disc album sales are still strong, the singles of physical CDs have declined drastically in comparison to their digital counterparts, to the financial damage of neither medium. Ones sales are decreasing, ones are increasing. This new emphasis on the digital single as opposed to the physical single is one that will serve the music industry well as a whole. The digital single is the natural successor to the physical single, and this new market is replacing the previous one, not taking away from it. Similar arguments were made when cassettes replaced vinyl records, when CDs replaced cassettes and when DVDs replaced VHS. This is not the death of an industry; it is their rebirth in a new medium.

The problem, however, with this new revenue model for a new medium is that it does not take into account the stringent security measures put in place by corporations to protect their product. This Digital Rights Management system, despite being draconian in nature, is designed to ensure that only the user that purchases the product has access to it. In actuality, this puts more and more limits on the rights on the individual to do whatever they want with their legitimate purpose, driving many audiophiles to download music just to be able to have that freedom. With such severe limitations placed on rights of digital music owners, listening to music has now become a privilege.

In fact, because of DRM, it seems all digital music listeners are infringing on the copyright of music corporations. Lemi Baruh discusses the development of a “permissions culture” where “the usage limits imposed by the changes in the legal and the technological infrastructure that governs use of digitized music creates an environment within which music enthusiasts will be stripped of their already limited ability to determine and/or anticipate which types of content use are "kosher." Music piracy does not cost the music industry any money, and a large majority of case, actually leads to legal sales of their product. However, Baruh states that “every time an individual purchases a CD or downloads a song from a different online store, a new set of standards regarding appropriate uses of content are presented to her. Buying cultural products and buying software and hardware to consume cultural products increasingly resemble going through an airport security check point when the terror-alert level is orange. You never know what will prompt alarms. As a result, every [end] user will increasingly wonder whether she is doing something wrong.” However, if a person downloads, listens to and likes a song, it is possible that he or she might seek out the band and legally purchase their CD. Stranger things have happened.

What really terrifies the music industry as a whole is that no matter what, the music will live on. With the advent of the internet, it is possible for artists and bands to upload their music and bypass the middle-men. No more agents, publishers, distributors, promoters and recorders. The music goes straight from the composer to the listener, and the industry gets no slice of the action, to their financial detriment. The industry, while acting in the interests of self preservation, has not acted in the interests of its customers, driving many of them away in droves over their staggering overreaction to the perceived threat of music piracy and copyright infringements. It is not enough that they seek to protect their own investment; they need to offer the consumer a reason to stick by them while they weather the storm they themselves have created to justify this draconian regime.

Produsing the future

The rise of the “produser” is symbolic of the power that DIY media has suddenly acquired. Where before user-led content creation was strictly for hardcore fans of science-fiction, and for aspiring filmmakers with a very slim chance of cracking the mainstream, it is commonplace in the 21st century for one to make ones own fun, and stands to profit from it.

However, with the advent of video hosting and sharing websites such as youtube.com, this line between producer and audience has never been blurrier. Now that anyone can generate their own content, what use are professional media producers anymore? When a teenager can produce a $500,000 ad campaign on Avid for practically zero cost, producers should begin to worry about their status in the industry. However, despite whatever video editing skills they may possess, the majority of produsers devote their time to producing content that is of a less than professional bent, many of which infringe on copyright and intellectual property ownership laws.

The Anime Music Video genre, which exploded onto the web thanks to youtube.com, although existing in a legally gray area, will not be a calling card in the industry for people hoping to break into the entertainment industry. John Banks articulates that “the relationship between audiences/consumers and corporate producers is undergoing significant transformation”. Entities such as “audience”, “fan”, “corporation” and “consumer” are relational – they emerge from continually transforming networks of relations. It follows from that, if the relationships are undergoing potentially significant transformations then the entities themselves are in the process of being restructured and reorganized”.

Key to this reorganisation of audience transformation and participation is the idea that anyone can do it. That kind of psychological incentive – that people actually watch You Tube, and that people in the “industry” watch to scope out new talent – is one of the driving forces behind the surge of You Tube celebrities such as lonelygirl15. Short filmmaker “celioclaire”, as a result of winning this contest on Youtube, was flown to Los Angeles in order to meet with Fox Searchlight pictures, and they are currently interning for Oscar-nominated director Jason Reitman.

That Youtube.com is the culmination of decades worth of DIY filmmaking comes as no surprise. Spider-man director Sam Raimi started off his career making self-financed cult classics such as The Evil Dead (banned in the UK until 2001) and Robert Rodriguez (Sin City, From Dusk Till Dawn, Desperado) spent a whole month having medical experiments carried out on him in order to raise the $7,000 needed to finance his first film. Now that the producers of tomorrow have a platform to broadcast their work on for the consumption of all, it stands to reason why people would want in.

One and One is Two Point Oh.

Why Web 2.0 is better than Web 1.0?

The major difference between Web 2.0, the moniker given to the way in which people can currently navigate the information technology superhighway of the internet, and Web 1.0 is the distinction between ease and functionality. Web 1.0 is the standard internet experience, where one searches, views, reads and otherwise interacts with the internet. What Web 2.0 signifies is the first time that the Web has interacted with its users. One no longer needs to scour individual internet sources in order to receive the latest updates on ones chosen field of interest, there are now means put in place that streamline your internet experience according to your needs.

It is this kind of fundamental change to the way one accesses the internet that is the greatest asset of the concept and execution of Web 2.0. This new breed of internet reform aims to facilitate collaboration between users, so that we all use the system, and everyone's collective knowledge is pooled for the betterment of the whole. This democratisation of the internet allows users to share information with one another, and that shared information is then funnelled towards collective goals. Web 2.0 is not really a new concept, merely one that has made the internet and its associated information technology streams easier and more efficient to access, by taking new ideas and applying them to the internet experience.

Actor and commentator Stephen Fry posits that Web 2.0 is merely "an idea in people's heads rather than a reality. It’s actually an idea that the reciprocity between the user and the provider is what's emphasised. In other words, genuine interactivity, if you like, simply because people can upload as well as download."

Adventures in Cyberspace Pt 1: Electric Boogaloo

How do online communities organise themselves?

"Decisions are made by those who show up." But in an increasingly simulated online world where divisions between the virtual and the physical are slowly being broken down, communities are organising themselves through a network of email, instant messaging, comment posting and blogging, creating a world where there are no boundaries. What Terry Flew argues is that we have reached, or will reach, a point in our lives where the two cannot be easily separated, and that the online world will slowly become embedded in our offline lives.

In an online environment, positions of power are given to those who contribute the most and the best, those that are an active participant in their online fields and communities, regardless of race, colour, creed or location. Conversely, the same can not be said for the real world. Offline communities are generally confined within the boundaries of a physical area, depending on location for association.

What Flew points to as the future is a virtual world where barriers are broken down, and an imperfect meritocracy where those who have the best ideas and those that actually actively contribute to their virtual society will hold the keys to power.