The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted

Recently, the popular social theorist Malcolm Gladwell published an article that essentially dismissed social media as a medium that "can't provide what social change has always required."  Gladwell tracks many revolutions in history that occurred successfully without the use of Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media websites. 

The article can be found on The New Yorker's website here.

Specifically, Gladwell looks at the recent revolution in Iran and dismisses social media's role in the protests.  He claims that very few people had access to Twitter or Facebook in the country, and that most of the tweeting and facebooking came from those in the West.

Ultimately, Gladwell claims that social media does a good job at spreading ideas to the weak ties that we hold on the internet but it does a terrible job at involving people in high-risk activities.  Gladwell also claims that social media is not effective in increasing our motivation.

Malcolm Gladwell said all of these things before the recent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen.  Critics have jumped on him for saying the things that he did because they believe that social media has been one of the most important tools for the recent uprisings. 

Gladwell even posted a response to the criticism here: http://nyr.kr/ggo3aZ

I agree with Malcolm Gladwell to an extent.  I think that we have given too much power to social media because it gives us the excuse to sit at our desks and sign online petitions and join Facebook Causes instead of getting on our feet and taking to the streets to raise money.  As a culture, we give too much power to social media because it allows us to feel involved in joining with the citizens of Egypt through reading the Tweets of Nick Kristoff while he is on the ground there.

Social media is good for disseminating information and for asking people to do small things, but it doesn't motivate people to make huge sacrifices.

Do you take Malcolm Gladwell's position or do you think that social media is an integral part of revolutions and social change?

Cyberculture Comparison

Located here.

Respond

"The Web sets the stage for interactions between readers and writers in a way that traditional print does not," says James J. Brown in his piece Evil Bert Laden: ViRaL Texts, Community, and Collision.  Brown argues that the web invites countless writers into a conversation that seems to never end.  This conversation continues with every blog post, with every tweet, with every Facebook status update, and with every comment. The nature of this, however, is that multiple viewpoints and cultures and religions and traditions are placed into a single space.

Brown argues that this interaction of different backgrounds in the same space creates, as Brown cites, a 'depropriative address” that is traumatic and contaminating.  It is traumatic in that it goes over our ability to comprehend and analyze information and it is contaminating because it creates a "readiness to respond that precedes desire and will."

This may not be such a bad thing.  Maybe a "readiness to respond that precededs desire and will" is actually good for global and local dialogue online.  Brown argues that when Westerners viewed the Ben Laden picture, they were confronted with a "trauma that called into question any clean separation between a community of 'us' against 'them.'" Reducing the clean separation between 'us' and 'them' is a good thing.  Even under the context of a puppet in a video with a terrorist, we are forced to analyze the images that divide the West within itself and with other countries and cultures.

Even though the online sphere creates in us a readiness to respond without will or desire, perhaps responding may be the most important step we can take.

Does the internet truly foster an environment that is prime for new understanding through response and conversation?

S/R Paper 1

In the introductory chapter, Henry Jenkins warns readers not to “expect the uncertainties surrounding convergence to be solved anytime soon” (24) and he uses the content of his book to present the notion that traditionally separated media outlets are becoming increasingly intertwined, assuming “all knowledge resides in humanity” (27) and that this knowledge is being virtually conglomerated through “new forms of participation and collaboration” (256). Using American Idol as an example of a television program that is representative of media as a whole, Jenkins outlines a new kind of messaging orchestrated by media companies that blurs the lines between entertainment and advertising while viewers and users are shifting “from real-time interaction towards asynchronous participation” (59). In this “new knowledge culture” (27), new virtual communities are created and defined through “voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations” (27). As a result of increased media convergence and as a means to keep the attention of these virtual communities, “compelling environments that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work or even a single medium” (116) are created by media outlets using the concept of transmedia storytelling. In an age where a thirteen-year-old can create a website about Harry Potter to be read by millions of people, Jenkins argues that “consumer participation has emerged as the central conceptual problem” because “traditional gatekeepers want to hold onto control of cultural content” (215). Jenkins argues that these traditional gatekeepers need to release their grasp because users will be “more powerful within convergence culture, but only if they use that power as full participants in our culture” (270). In a culture where citizens are simply monitorial, perhaps the most detrimental effects can be seen in the decline of our democracy. Jenkins states that we can see beneficial democracy as an outcome of technological change, but “we need to fight to achieve [it] with every tool at our disposal” (294).


In the afterword, Jenkins discusses how the political landscape changes in “the age of YouTube” (271). When referencing the current virtual landscape, Jenkins makes the case that political participation “occurs at three levels here – those of production, selection, and distribution” (275). Using YouTube as a case study, Jenkins argues that digital media brings “all three functions together into a single platform and directs attention on the role of everyday people” (275). This statement effectively summarizes the power that convergence media has on the political process. In the 2008 presidential campaign we saw the power of participation in the virtual sphere. Impassioned supporters of Barack Obama created and contributed to virtual communities that organized people and mobilized them to successfully elect him. Digital democracy realized an apparent triumph during the 2008 presidential campaign because a large group of people got excited about participating in advocacy in online publics and they seemed to be departing from the passive mentality of merely monitoring information. Despite this, however, Jenkins argues that “an open platform does not necessarily ensure diversity” (290). Even though culture has seen a movement of people, through active participation, harness convergence media for the well being of democracy, Jenkins argues that the nature of a user-moderated virtual environment works “badly when [it] preempts the expression of minority perspective and hides unpopular and alternative content from view” (290). Online forums populated by users who are predominately for a certain position may not be open to a user who presents the opposite viewpoint. “For better and for worse,” Jenkins states, “this is what democracy looks like in the era of convergence culture” (293). With Convergence Culture, Jenkins shows the reader that “resources for activism and social commentary” are placed into “the hands of everyday citizens” (293). Now Jenkins wants us to use these resources, but he wants us to use them wisely, being “attentive to the ethical dimensions by which we are generating knowledge” (294). With our continually converging culture, “media change is bringing about transformations in the way other core institutions operate” (294). Political discourse is being shifted and molded with the convergence of culture, and Jenkins argues that we should participate.

Literacy in the Digital Age

The definition of literacy needs to go beyond one's ability to read and write.  In this day and age, an individual must pursue an understanding and an ability to participate in digital culture to become a fully literate human being.  In the conclusion of Convergence Culture, Jenkins states the challenge is "not simply being able to read and write, but being able to participate in the deliberations over what issues matter" (Pg. 269).  In the conclusion of this book, Jenkins makes the argument that simply being a monitorial citizen does not make a person a productive member of the media society.  In our day and age, we must define literacy in terms of one's ability to read, write, and participate. 

Just as Jenkins highlights in his example of CNN and YouTube partnering to broadcast a political debate centered around questions directly from citizens, our participation in media must extend into the political realm.  During a class that I took last semester called Political Communication, we discussed how our overflow of information actually pressures us to be less directly involved in politics.  This is the case because we oftentimes feel so involved in the political process through the media's lens that we unconsciously convince ourselves that we don't need to be a part of the voting process.  In the mind of a monitorial citizen, there is no need to formulate personalized opinions because one can simply quaff the opinions of the talking heads on television and digest them for what they are without fully processing their implications.

To this end, Jenkins warns against the notion that democracy is an "inevitable outcome of technological change" (Pg. 294).  In order to allow for the internet to truly blossom into its potential for a more democratic and just society, we must become conscience consumers of our media.  Our media is currently full of garbled messages and frivolous information but, as Jenkins states, we are not to believe that the only true alternative is to "opt out of media altogether and live in the woods, eating acorns and lizards and reading only books published on recycled paper by small alternative presses" (Pg. 259).  Instead, he challenges us to "tap media power for our own purposes" (Pg. 260).  In doing so, we become literate in the light of an updated definition.

Monitorial citizenship is a temptation, but "the advent of new production tools and distribution channels have lowered barriers of entry into the marketplace of ideas" (Pg. 293).  If we are to see a more politically and socially healthy society, we must neither reject virtual media altogether nor blindly grasp it fully.  We must critically engage and contribute to the space, always airing on the side of skepticism while maintaining a faith in the value of collective knowledge and the power of a diverse set of ideas coinciding within a single medium.

Casuals, Zappers, and Loyals

Henry Jenkins defines 'Zappers' as "people who constantly flit across the dial" (Pg. 74).  These folks are the channel surfers and the easily-bored.  They spend little time on a channel and flip across a multitude of channels.  With our increased  He defines 'Loyals' as "people who make long term commitments" (Pg. 74).  These people are dedicated to a few shows, spend their social time talking about them, and spend less time than the general population watching television. 'Casuals' are in the middle of these two categories and are not dedicated to a series, but will watch a show start-to-finish if their is nothing better to do.  They are "more apt to wander away if it starts to bore them" (Pg. 74).  The book talks about how much of the 1990s was seen by analysts as a time when there was an "overstressed significance of the zappers" (Pg. 75).  In this regard, humanity was seen to be always in need of instant gratification, and because of this had an inability to sit still through full television programs.  It was even predicted that "there will be fewer occasions where people sit down and watch a show from beginning to end without interruptions" (Pg. 75).  This prediction has proven to be false, and our current media landscape is prime for a larger amount of people who fall into the 'loyals' and 'casuals' categories instead of the 'zappers' category.

With the rise of online television sites like Hulu, single shows are offered through the streamed medium of the internet.  Oftentimes it takes sitting through a 30 second commercial before the program will start, and it makes changing shows difficult and unappealing.  These websites are a perfect environment for generating 'loyals' because there is a great difficulty in changing the virtual channels because of the advertisements and natural restrictions built into the system.  We are faced with a cable and satellite system that offers so many channels that, to a viewer, it can be like drinking from a fire hydrant.  The current landscape holds so many choices that viewers naturally look for a mental buffer to let the best and most personalized shows and programs float to the surface to be viewed.

"Industry research now suggests that 'loyals' are much more valuable than 'zappers'" (Pg. 76).  This has proven to be even more true since Convergence Culture was published.  The rise of web television has shown that the 'loyals' are much more valuable, because these mediums were designed with this demographic in mind. 

Do you think that the greater number of channels offered to viewers inspires more people to be 'loyals' or 'zappers'? If your answer is 'loyals,' do you think that web television services like Hulu going to continue to be growing in prominence because of this reason?