I have not been up-to-date with technology until recently. I actually bought my first Smart Phone only a couple weeks ago. My friend’s on the other hand, have had a BlackBerry for quite a long time. While walking to class with them, it is not uncommon if they are text and talking on the phone. For this reason, I think I am more aware of the intersection and interaction between the physical space and information technology. For them, it’s second nature, to me it’s a little more obvious.
An example, yesterday at lunch there was a long line for getting chicken. When the chef said it would take about 3 more minutes before the food would be ready, nearly everybody in that 15 person line, whipped out a cell phone and started using it. I laughed when I noticed it and looked over to my friend to point that out. But, when I turned around to talk to him, he was using his BlackBerry too!
Whenever I see a student using his or her cell phone or laptop during lunch or while walking to class, I use to think that person has a very poor attention-span. But after being around it more often and actually doing it myself, I realized it isn’t wasting time. It gives us more time; instead of walking to class and getting nothing done, these people were on the BlackBerry reading about their homework. Yes, many times technology actually wastes time, like using Facebook or texting, instead of studying, but it makes up for it when it saves time.
Before whether a business had Wi-Fi, it wouldn’t affect my decision. Now that I carry a laptop with me, Wi-Fi accessibility is the first thing I look for. Other businesses are noticing this trend, as many are putting that technology is their store. This could cause more and more people to start bringing their Laptop, because if the business has it, why not use it? Other places will see the trend and allow more space to eat and do work at the same time. In the end, when I see a person using a lap-top or Smart Phone while waiting in line, I no longer think that he or she has a short attention span…I think they are just good multi-taskers!
Throughout the semester dozens, if not hundreds, of different topics were discussed in class. That leaves many possible options for assignment #12; searching and discussing one issue on Wikipedia. With so many choices, it almost makes it more difficult to choose. I wanted to do a topic that nearly everybody is familiar with; I was going to pick Facebook. But that is a very common topic and probably many others will choose the same. I was going to go with Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, similar topic, but less obvious. As I went to Wikipedia, a brilliant idea hit me, I knew which topic was perfect! It’s relevant, very interesting and one which only a few students might discuss…that’s our very own professor! Yes, I chose Dr. (Tarleton) Gillespie for this assignment.
However, my excitement was short lived, because even though Dr. Gillespie does have his own Wikipedia page, and the page does meet the requirements of “been at least 6 months old”, and it even has “more than 5 authors”, it sadly doesn’t meet the requirement of having “at least five external citations.”
After the crushing news of not being able to dissect Dr. G.’s page, I wanted to go with the theme of “social networking.” That’s when another topic popped up; I knew actually what to do. This person is relevant, interesting and known to most…in fact, most us of are “friends” with him. That is Tom (Anderson) from MySpace, if you have a MySpace account, then he is on your “friends” list.
His Wikipedia address is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Anderson_(MySpace). The original date of this entry is January 28th, the piece has between 1,500 – 2,000 contributors. I chose him because we discussed social networking sites throughout the semester, and his site, MySpace, have been credited with starting the craze. Yes, his site was not the first site, but it was the first to become extremely popular.
Tom’s Wikipedia page is surprising short for how “famous” he is. Heck, Dr. Gillespie’s Wikipedia’s is longer! At first glance, Tom’s page doesn’t seem to be bias because every statement or statistic is followed up with a link to the source. But, looking closer, it could be considered bias because there are some facts that are not listed; mostly the decline of MySpace within the past couple years. The only mention of the present day MySpace is, “[I]t is currently one of the most popular social networking websites in the United States (listing consistently among the top ten on Alexa Top 500 Global Sites, after its main competitor, Facebook).” No mention that MySpace had to fire 30% of their employees in 2009 because of their decline. Yes, there is a Wikipedia entry on MySpace which has all the statistics, the good and the bad, Tom’s page doesn’t have ANY such news.
For having so short of Wikipedia page, Tom has a couple surprisingly heated controversies. These topics were discussed by several different contributors all with citations and sources. The issues are 1). Tom Anderson’s age, 2). if he is the infamous computer hacker “Lord Flathead” and 3). his involvement in Asian porn…yes, Asian porn.
1). Tom’s real age, on his MySpace page he states he attended Berkeley in 1994. Which would suggest he is 34 years old, however, “in a 1986 issue of Phrack has him 16 in 1986” (http://www.phrack.com/issues.html?issue=11&id=11). There are been several different document released with conflicting birthdays
2). If he is the infamous hacker “Lord Flathead”, this is a very “loose accusation” says most of the Wikipedia community. But there are still a couple who insist that Tom is the hacker. “Lord Flathead’s” age, and location match exactly with Tom during the time. The name of the hacker wasn’t officially released because the hacker was a minor at the time.
3). Asian porn! This is undisputed; Tom works with the website TeamAsian. The controversy is Tom’s involvement. It does not state exactly what his position is with the website, but it states he is “affiliated with it.” When Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace, he had a very big issue, and actually told Tom to step down from his position with TeamAsian. It is unknown Tom Anderson’s current status with that website
STUDENTS 10 YEARS AGO
With the change in technology and the increase of speed in which we get the news, this generation is leaps and bounds more informed than 10 years ago; however, it’s not always a good thing ( I will talk about shortly). As Fenton discussed, the Internet has made it possible for even the smaller voices to be heard. Just 10 years ago, for the most part, it was just the large channels which had a voice, now with the endless amount space to talk with the Internet, and more news channels who cover more less known story, we are more of a democracy than ever before. Because of the ability for anyone to voice their opinion and the speed of news, fact-checking sometimes doesn’t exist, like in the case of Dan Rather, which Josh pointed to in class. Yes, the speed of news is there, but it isn’t always the “right” news.
As I read the internet sites, such as Perezhilton or TMZ, I can recall at least one story a week where the websites corrects or changes some story they released. The problem, some who saw the orignal story, never read the correction, thus, wrong news is spread. Making us more informed but with bad information. Besides instances like this, we are more informed for the better.
Yes, the internet can spread wrong information, but for the most part, the right story is out there. Just 10 years ago, people had to go to the library and do research using REAL books…not fun. Now we can wear pajama’s at home and get the same amount done. Literally every single form of media is better now; from tv’s shows, to newspapers, to even radio. We are able to fact check with multi sources, instead of relying on just one. Plus, there are reliable places to make sure the information is as accurate as possible.
Overall, our undergraduate class is not only more informed, but also smarter. With the speed in which we get information and how many tasks we have to manage at once, we are better for it. The internet is a large part of the reason. Professors are able to give more assignments because work can be done faster, thus we know more about different subjects.
The material was a video clip from the 2010 Winter Olympics. The footage was first (B) “posted and available” at CBS.com, which I was very surprised about. But, after much controversy and backlash, the video was then (A). “removed from the site.” If you watched the Olympics or any of the major news networks during that time, you already know what I am referring to. It’s the video on the crash of the Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili, who was killed nearly instantly when he was flung off the track with only a couple hundred feet from the finish line.
CBS owned the rights to the footage, which was on their website for the days following Nodar’s death. CBS made money from advertisers on every view they received on a video, which grew a huge outcry, making money off the young luger. But it wasn’t just because of the money aspect did many protest; it was actually the way in which the video was edited!
I will explain. Other videos from the same luge event, was shorter. Footage from other lugers started two seconds before the racer would pass the “start line” and end two seconds are he or she finishes the race. But, not with the video of Nodar; his video, started 30 seconds before the race even started! It had a close up on Nodar’s face which a focus on his face. This shot stayed there for several seconds. I saw the footage on CBS.com and I have to say, it’s one of the most eerie things I have witnessed. During the close-up short of Nodar, the thought of “Oh, my God, he is going to be dead within 1 minute” kept running through my head. I showed the tape to my brother, and he had the exact same reaction.
How the video ended also upset many people, including other news networks. When Nodar crashed, he was going literally 80 MPH and went face-first into a steel beam. But, the video did not end there. It showed paramedics doing CPR on his dead body. Many thought CBS added this shot for dramatic effect. The reason the scene was NOT newsworthy, was because Nodar was already biologically dead, which means the CPR was useless.
After a week of bad press and urging from even the nation of Georgia, CBS took the video down. I agree with this move. At first glance, I could see why CBS first put the video up. The whole world wanted to see the video, and it seemed newsworthy. But, after looking at the facts: The family wanted it down, it came off that the company was making money off the death of a 21 year old, and how the editing of the video seemed more like CBS wanted to glorify instead of inform. I definitely agree with the choice of taking the video down.
I decided to critique the website Politico.com. I came to this site by Googling “Politian website” and clicking on the first site which fit the assignment’s criteria. When looking at the site the first thing that pops out is its color. It has a very obvious red, white, and blue. There is very little use of any color, besides the patriotic pattern.
As for the layout of the website, it is very neat and organized. There are 11 blocks which can be clicked. Each box is clearly labeled: “Politico 44”, “Congress”, “Lobbying”, “Headlines” are a few choices. I clicked on the ladder of the four, “Headlines. There are many different slideshows of pictures and video which pops up, with one large sized video loaded to play. The main video is in the center of the page. The video is about Republicans who held a party at a “bondage club.” I do not think the video was bias because it was telling a newsworthy story. After watching the video, I stayed in the “headlines” section and looked at some slide shows. Most of the pictures were of the president or the vice-president; however Joe McCain and Sarah Palin made an appearance in several shots. The picture seemed unbiased as well, because it made politicians from both party look good. The site didn’t have Republicans or Democrats in situations which made them look dumb, i.e., a shot of Sarah Palin sneezing.
Back to the “home page”; the front story was a piece which was new about President Obama and offshore drilling. The tone of the piece was unbiased and was written by an experience writer, as it lists the credentials of the sites writers. On the “home page”, there are dozens of different stories all clearly labeled. There are also 4 bloggers on the main page, who give their somewhat humorous view on issues.
The site is also interactive. It has a question which polls the viewers on an issue, also, a place to leave feedback. And to make searching the site easier, you can type in “key words” to filter articles or search through specific writers. There is a good amount of different functions, but not too many, as the viewer could get overwhelmed
Overall, the website is very modern and entertaining. It doesn’t matter which party you represent, the site has something for everyone: from funny political comics, to videos on the personal side of politicians. I think other political websites should take note of the layout of politico.com, because I really like the site…and I usually don’t like political material!
In 2003 the UN sponsored a World Summit on the Information Society. It was held in Geneva with delegates representing 175 different countries. The overall goal for this meeting was “to bring together heads of state of representatives from international, private, and civil society organizations concerned with the implications of information technology across the globe.” The meeting finished, but with some controversy, which was over the adoption of a “Declaration of Principles.”
The Declaration of Principles is a very optimistic list. It has 67 points, some of which are about using technology to benefit the many facets of life (e.g.) using “information and communication technology to…[eradicate the] extreme poverty and hunger, achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases…” to name a few (point 2).
Another point is in regards to “Cultural Diversity and Identity, Linguistic Diversity and Local Content”, which states “cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind. The information of Society should be founded on and stimulate respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity, traditions and religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and civilizations” (52). It even talks about the role of the “government and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development” and touches on the “information of communication infrastructure” (B1)
What I feel is the most important aspiration on the list is number 29 and 30, which is “each person should have the opportunity to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge in order to understand, participate actively in, and benefit fully from, the Information Society and the knowledge economy…taking into account the special needs of persons with disabilities and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.”
This is very important because no one group is better than another. To truly be equal, everyone should have an equal chance at getting the “necessary skill and knowledge in order to understand.” It is better to get the ideas of many on something which can affect everyone. Just because an individual was born with a disadvantage, doesn’t mean that he or she doesn’t matter.
Money is the biggest obstacle when trying to achieve the global informational society goals, which is presented in the document. The document presents ideas which would take time and energy, both of which costs money. Also, to keep up with the technology takes even more resources. This document has grandiose ideas which would be wonderful if it could happen, but mankind has been trying to reach these goals for thousands of years. Truly nothing would be better if we could “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; to achieve a universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduce the child mortality rate…and to attain a more peaceful, just and prosperous world.” If I ever meet a genie and he grants me three wishes, these goals can happen. But other than that, it sounds near impossible.
I do not consider myself a dumb person, but for some reason, I have trouble at times understanding what the heck the people in congress are saying. Their long winded, rhetoric is a little confusing. With each sentence using more syllables than the last, during a speech that never seems to end. If politicians had to speak with less room, let’s say only 140 characters, I believe it would be much easier to understand.
A politician is a world class speaker. To persuade people to vote their way, or explaining why they did a certain act, a lot can get mixed up in speech. They are brilliant at masking an unpopular message and mixing it up with a more favorable opinion. With 140 characters, not much can be masked. And if he or she was limited to only using 140 characters, it would be good news for me, because I kinda get confused easily!
The popular topics on twitter are Justin Bieber, Jaebum, Health Care Summit, Andrew Garcia, and Tiger Woods. I noticed that this list is actually what is being talked about in a face-to-face conversation. Well, maybe not specifically by name, but in general. I will explain…when people talk to each other, a very popular topic is a conversation about a hot singer, sometimes it’s Britney Spears, Shakira, or in this case Justin Bieber. Since the Olympics are once every couple years (winter and summer games) it is a very popular topic, and on the list is Jaebum, a Korean figure skater. There’s Andrew Garcia who’s on American Idol and then I will end with Tiger. With the news lately, everybody is talking about Dirty D Woods and his epic fall from grace.
This list is saying that people on Twitter talk about topics which are talked about in a face-to-face conversation. Twitter is a place where a person can vent about issues or people. On a side note, if you think about it Twitter is a perfect place for people who have no friends. If a person has no friends then Twitter might be their only catharsis to talk about issues they want to. And I have talked to people who have twittered before, even if nobody responds, they still feel a little bit better just by “tweeting” it.
Political term that is popular right now is “GOP” (Grand old Party). It refers to the Republican Party. When I first saw that, I thought many people where talking about the greatness of that party. Since it was talked about in class, that more Republican politicians Tweet, many more individuals who are Republicans do also. But, that is not the case at all. When clicking on people who used the term “GOP”, their tweets were about how bad that particular party is. Here is an example “@ricksanchezcnn GOP is still stuck in Hoover mode on HC with their heads firmly planted in the sand.” Or a more shocking tweet “CDReed: GOP congressman says black people better off under”
This is already a good element fort politics. There are so many different issues to worry about. Because of Twitter many important quotes or issues would never see the light of day. An example is the second Tweet I posted “CDReed: GOP congressman says black people better off under.” I never knew that quote was made if it wasn’t for Twitter. Very interesting to see what will happen. Politicians are getting away with less and less, because if they say or do something dumb, somebody will Tweet about it, then more and more will know. This could a good think because politicians aren’t known for having a great “moral compass.”
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (OTCBB:CCMO) is a global media and entertainment company specializing in mobile and on-demand entertainment and information services for local communities and premiere opportunities for advertisers. Based in San Antonio, Texas, the company’s businesses include radio and outdoor displays. (clearchannel.com)
This company works in a medium near and dear to me; that’s in radio. Clear Channel is not just an average radio station owner though. In fact, the company owns 900 stations, and is the largest radio station group owner in the United States, both by number of stations and by revenue (The Top 25 Radio Groups By Revenue”. 30. Radio World. July 19, 2006. p. 28.).
Some of the 900 stations owned by Clear Channel are, AMFM Apex Capstar (also operating under Gulfstar, Southern Star, and Atlantic Star) Chancellor Clark Broadcasting, Jacor Quad City, Paxson Communications, The Acherley group. What sets this media company apart, they own outdoor advertising in 25 different countries. If that wasn’t enough Clear Channel recently purchased several television stations; 40 television stations in total. And later in this essay I will discuss another area of media they work in.
In 2003 Clear Channel decided to hire Vertical Real Estate to promote their towers portfolio’s. They actually own over 1,300 towers, which could be rented by third-parties such as cellular and PCS companies, wireless internet and fixed wireless. In total, Clear Channel has radio stations which produce most every type of genre, from rap to religious; to rock and Spanish. on top of this. the own several news channels.
Clear Channel is committed to leadership in all media segments where the company participates. Clear Channel’s strength as a media company and its success as a publicly traded stock translates into solid benefits for Clear Channel Outdoor. The future financial stability of Clear Channel is evident from its longevity and strategic acquisitions.Clear Channel is now the world’s largest outdoor advertiser with over 800,000 out-of-home displays. Clear Channel is also a world media leader with 1225 radio in the United States and 240 radio stations international(1465 radio stations) in 300 markets, 37 television stations, over 900 international websites and the world’s largest concert promoter. (clearchannel.com)
What does this mean? this equates to a powerhouse. Clear channel has many different sponsors and advertisers. Since they own many different types of genre, including news channels. One could wonder if any of their messages are shaped because of the high price many of their advertisers pay. In my opinion, I believe this media company could be too big. The reason, they are being broadcasting in some way, in 25 countries. Wanting to keep their advertisers happy, theoretically could not only shape a message not only nationally, but also globally!
Market Locations and Information
Clear Channel Outdoor offers advertising opportunities at a broad range of geographical locations, allowing advertising campaigns the flexibility to reach target audiences across cultural boundaries.
Global Markets and Product Offerings by Continent/Region
Select a market below for details.
|Country||Billboard||Street Furniture||Airport||Bus||Metro||Rail||Tram||Mall / Point of Sale||Spectaculars|
|Country||Billboard||Street Furniture||Airport||Bus||Metro||Rail||Tram||Mall / Point of Sale||Spectaculars|
|Country||Billboard||Street Furniture||Airport||Bus||Metro||Rail||Tram||Mall / Point of Sale||Spectaculars|
I have a different view point and opinion than most college students in regards to this topic. The reason, I am severely behind technology and I am nearly computer illiterate. This might be due to the fact that I am close to my mid-twenties and just missed the wave where schools have classes which teach computer use. Thus, I don’t really keep up-to-date on the latest news on the business of media, nor do I search the web very often. And that is why my opinions carry far less conviction than most.
After reading the four pieces, my opinions are very similar to Caterina Fake. I disagree most with Lanier and Peterson. I believe they are both slightly cynical, with Peterson on the verge of paranoia. Here is a short summary of Lanier and Peterson:
Lanier, who is sometimes called “the father of Virtual Reality technology”, says “if you want to foster creativity and excellence, you have to introduce some boundaries.” He also talks about “Digital collectivism.” And goes further in depth with, “There’s a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn’t proven to be true. The most sophisticated, influential and lucrative examples of computer code—like the page-rank algorithms in the top search engines or Adobe’s Flash— always turn out to be the results of proprietary development.”
I disagree with Lanier, because I believe the internet is better as a whole, with collective though than with just a “proprietary development.” The best example is Wikipedia. It is a website of collective thought. It is more accurate than The Encyclopedia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm ).
Peterson’s believes can be summarized: “Google’s appropriation of all the free labor that is stored in Usenet postings and discussions is an example of how a distributed network of participation turns into a closed architecture of exploitation.”
Even though most who add content to YouTube or any other websites are not getting paid, I believe they are not being exploited. People who use these websites are still getting services which make life more enjoyable. I will use YouTube as an example. Most who contribute to this site are doing it pro bono, but it’s still a chance for one’s voice to be heard. People love to voice their opinion on various subjects, before the internet, the best way to do that is to stand atop a soapbox and yell, hoping some will listen. Now, because of the internet and various websites, people can express how they feel in the comfort of their own homes. This is the number one reason why I believe the internet is perfect the way it is, even if some believe it is “exploitive.” Here is Fake’s opinion “to the claim that people who give content are being exploited, people do things for reasons other than bolstering their egos and making money. You shouldn’t need a motivation or justification to correct spelling or factual errors on Wikipedia — a certain desire for orderliness, good grammar, or truth should be sufficient.” And “…no one is claiming Wikipedia’s entries are better written than those of Charles Lamb or Edmund Gosse in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. But really, who cares?”