The not so Illiterate Parent gets Storified

12 Jul

This Storify article continues on my campaign to educate those social media illiterate parents out there. By using articles that support my ideas with statistics and anecdotal examples I used Storify to build an informative and hopefully helpful article that can help those parents that need it adapt to the social media world that their children are growing up.  By doing so I hopefully have given them some tools to protect their children as they grow up in a continually changing cyber world environment. 

http://storify.com/ColinMcMurray2/catching-up-with-media-literate-kids

Cyber Democracy: Maybe it is not always about the $.

9 Jul

            As usual, my initial post about citizen journalism and twitter evolved around money. However, upon further reflection and influence from posts I see things a bit different. Though I do not deny the idea that citizen journalism can be inclusive and educating unfortunately, I maybe ignored it as case of not seeing the forest because of the big tree of greed that I tend to focus on.

            “On twitter the news blurbs are said to be tweeted for faster access to benefit the users” was how one commenter succinctly put it and I cannot argue with that. Tweets about news events are essentially eyewitness reports that have always been essential to the telling of stories.[1] The difference is now it is not always the reporter or media companies deciding what we see or hear, instead now it is us. This makes the decision more democratic as we choose what to believe by our own choices of whether to participate and in what way, which supports some of Jenkin’s and Thorburn’s argument in The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy.[2] This makes us a proactive participant as a storyteller by seeking out the sources and researching the information if we choose to and editing it ourselves to come to the truth as we see it.

            The mainstream media that I always view with at least one eye of suspicion because of their ulterior motives do seem to be actively engaged in citizen journalism themselves. The Fukishima article supports this by showing that these media outlets included links to other websites, blogs, and social media to help readers and viewers gather the information about the radiation leak just as they were even though I viewed this with my myopic scepticism in my previous blog.[3]In addition, the recent bombings in Boston show the importance of social media and the technology it requires in the capturing the magnitude, importance and reality of the stories as they unfold. Another great example that my biased as the Illiterate parent had not given much thought to is one I experienced while driving home from soccer tonight and listening to radio describe the havoc that a severe storm was having on the Toronto area. There were tweets from listeners describing scenes of flooded roads that enable drivers to avoid areas of possible danger. One on air personality at TSN radio who could not reach the station blamed the fact that for several hours he was not connected to social media and was unaware of flooding and traffic issues causing him to be stuck in traffic. Yes, they are competing for us as viewers, readers or webpage hits to improve their bottom line. However, they are or at least should be doing it for our benefit by providing and including us citizen journalists with as much information as possible to help educate and empower us to make decisions or conclusions that we are comfortable with.

            One thing we do need to remember though is not to be completely naïve when reading tweets or blogs from citizen journalists. Often those people may have their own biases and reasons for contributing and  commenting or are often be misrepresented themselves. A recent case with a hockey player who though only tweeting for entertainment or ego purposes, tweeted some inflammatory and offensive homophobic comments and blamed others for hacking  into his account. Though this is not exactly citizen journalism, it does show the power of social media and reasons to be careful in what we believe and does provides a good example of my point.[4] We need to be aware of what we read and do our due diligence if we are to benefit from the new cyber democracy of which we all now are “netizens”.[5] That is if we choose to participate.

[2] Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn. Introduction: The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy. in Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn eds. (2003). Democracy and New Media. CambridgeMA: MIT Press. p1-17.

[5] Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn. Introduction: The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy. in Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn eds. (2003). Democracy and New Media. CambridgeMA: MIT Press. p1-17.

Opportunistic Opportunities

5 Jul

The proliferation of social media has given all the opportunity to become “netizens” and engage in political, social activist and journalistic endeavours online.[1] Unfortunately, if and how we participate is the real issue.  The idea that we all have a chance to participate is great, but as Peter Dahlgren wrote that “participation is the key concept” and that the majority are more interested in using the opportunity that social media and the internet provides them to delve into online entertainment rather than engage in social or political activism.[2] Also as usual with the Illiterate Parent and his cynical viewpoint money and profit always, seem to creep into the conversation.

The social media platforms as seen by Dahlgren are used to engage in what he calls an “enormous competition for attention” from mainstream media and this is where the cynical profit and revenue argument rears its head in my view. Much like I discussed in my previous post of how the recording industry adapted to ensure their revenue streams were maintained, I see the same thing occurring here. Bruns and Highfield write in their article about twitter that news media sources have adapted to the immediacy that is expected from the now if not sooner generation. They show that in 2010 of the top 198 newspaper and television stations in United States only one did not have a twitter feed. In 2013 where even bloggers are treated as media equals in journalistic circles, I can imagine that all media outlets now have multiple twitter feeds for all those who produce the content.[3] It is from that content that the money issue arises. Alfred Hermida writes in Tweets and Truth that much like how  I discussed in another post that the recording industry adapted to Napster and file sharing technology, mainstream media sources “have adopted an opportunistic model” in an attempt to gather resources and tell the story as quickly as they can and worry abut the overall accuracy later.[4] In my mind when I read opportunistic, I read revenue source. Their use of twitter to engage consumers inevitably contains a link to their website where readers or viewers are then tabulated as hits and then used to show increased online traffic, which leads to advertising revenue. Then lo and be hold I come across an article in the telegraph today about twitter sending out sponsored tweets to those who have shown interest in certain brands or products. Here is twitters advertising revenue numbers from last year and this year as well as those projected for the future.

“Twitter is expected to earn $582m (£346m) in advertising revenue this year, according to eMarketer, up from $288m (£189m) in 2012. Next year, the company is expected to earn $950m (£623m) in ad revenue, eMarketer estimates, before reaching $1.3bn (£850m) by 2015.”[5]

Now please do not get me wrong because I have learned that social media has great benefits to us consumers or produsers. As Friedman discussed in the Fukushima nuclear disaster article, media outlets provided information on the situation as well as links to other online and social media sources that helped to educate and empower the reader by allowing them become engaged in the telling of the story.[6] Unfortunately, in my mind someone was profiting from us using those links and telling that and every other story online. An opportunistic use of opportunities is how I see it.

Pet Shop Boys-Opportunities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeWRd7ZEBs

[1] Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn. Introduction: The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy. in Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn eds. (2003). Democracy and New Media. CambridgeMA: MIT Press. p1-17.

[2] Dahlgren, P. (2012). Reinventing participation: civic agency and the web environment. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 4.2, p27.

[3] Bruns, A. & T. Highfield. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. pre-publication draft on personal site [Snurb.info]. Published in: Lind, R. A. ed. (2012). Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences and Production. New York: Peter Lang. p15-32.

[4] Hermida, A. (2012). TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. Journalism Practice. 6:5-6, p659-668.

Video

The Illiterate Parent goes Podcasting

29 Jun

In the middle of this course that led me to become the Illiterate Parent, my daughter brought home an information pamphlet from school about online safety for children. Perfect I thought and it almost was. It had lots of useful and helpful information for previously social media illiterate parents like my self, from defining terms used on social media to recommendations on what to discuss and look for when dealing with children and their online activities. What it did not discuss, was joining, and communicating with them on social media platforms as well as the benefits that come with it regarding educating and empowering your children as well as yourself s I have advocated as the Illiterate Parent.

Podcast Link:

https://soundcloud.com/the-illiterate-parent/the-illiterate-parent-podcast

Document Link:

http://www.reachedmonton.ca/content/door-thats-not-locked-safety-and-internet-parents-guide-children-ages-10-12

Other Links used:

http://www.surfnetkids.com/tech/2122/this-photo-will-self-destruct-in-10-9-8/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141161/The-end-sexting-The-new-app-destroys-risqu-photographs-seconds-received.html

Technology: Always causing problems

25 Jun

 

            The other posts I read along with the comment I received re-enforced my views that this is very much a generational issue. Most advocated that music should be free for various reasons, but nobody supported it by stating that it is because it for the most part always has been for them. There was also discussion about differences between streaming, downloading and remixing and do each qualify as piracy and if so to what extent

             Speaking for my generation (say 35-50 years old)  we will download illegally as well as still buy CDs, while the generation consisting of most of my fellow students from  what I have gathered, have been pirating music for so long that they feel it should continue to be free. However, children in their early or pre-teens seem to have been brainwashed (maybe a bit strong, but when it comes to Apple and their marketing I think it applies nicely) that they can only get music from I-Tunes. I have the credit card bill with the I-Tune charges to prove it. This has led me to searching to find the songs they want online free as I try to educate them and save myself some money. Not only am I an Illiterate Parent, I am also a cheap one.

            Another comment that provoked my interest was the difference between downloading and streaming music online. On comment mentioned that some are uncomfortable downloading so they stream yet they are again using the product with out paying for it. It is not the same as radio because radio stations pay the right to play songs. Along the same lines is the remixing and editing of other peoples work into a somewhat original idea. I understand Lessig’s argument that this is the new youth culture and I have no problem with this sort exchange of ideas as long as there is no profit made, but then again is the challenge of how do you measure that.

            One thing I realized is that new technology always seems to raise this issue within the entertainment media industry. Sousa spoke his fears of losing the use of our vocal chords as Lessig discussed because of new recording technology in the late 19th century and he was not the only one.  Kirby Ferguson mentioned in his Everything Is a Remix video series that American copyright laws for books became an issue because of printing technology, and after that were radio stations broadcasting music free to the masses and computers downloading and remixing content which all raised concern over people losing control of their intellectual properties and the money that came from them. A printing press, recording devices or file sharing digital technology all were challenges that forced media industries to adapt in order to maintain their revenue streams from those intellectual properties. I wonder what the next challenges will be or maybe the next one is already here and I am not aware of it. After all, I am the Illiterate Parent.

 

 

https://theilliterateparent.wordpress.com/ Comment

 

http://mimmzz.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-innocent-thief/#comments

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs&feature=player_embedded

 

http://vimeo.com/14912890, Kirby Ferguson

$ Online Piracy: It’s All About the Benjamins and the Bordens for us Canadians $

21 Jun

         The copyright piracy issue facing the recorded music industry is hardly new; it is just greater threat today because technology makes it so easy to do. Pirating of music has been an on going issue for decades if not longer. Larry Lessig discusses the threat that composer John Phillip Sousa saw with the introduction of recording technology as well as the threat that broadcasting technology posed to what became the recording industry. Sousa fears of losing our vocal chords may be a bit far fetched, but one can easily understand the concern though I do suspect his motives may have been a loss of his own livelihood over the loss of culture as it was with the music publishing and recording industry when radio threatened their revenues. Yet all survived in one way or another because they adapted which is what the recording industry will continue to do to guarantee their revenue.

                The biggest reason behind the concerns of the music industry is the loss of revenue, which in my cynical way of looking at things is the root of most issues. When I was younger, I acquired lots of music by recording on a blank audio tape and did this purely for one reason, money. It was cheaper to by a tape, borrow an album and make my own copy. This complies with Steinmetz and Tunnell and their argument that those committing online piracy are doing so because of the “inability to afford content.”[1] This is part of the problem with piracy today, but along with that is the relative ease to do so as well as minimal risk of being caught or punished as they also discussed. Music and the internet in essence became an online candy store, where the clerk has disappeared into the back for a while and left the children out front expecting them not to fill their pockets. This is much like what Bradley discussed where the two technologies of hacking, on-line communities and MP3s emerged and then converged to create candy stores like Napster that made it easy and free.[2] This is where the recording industry failed, in that they did not keep pace or adapt quick enough with the technology.  McCourt and Burkart argued that the Big Five Media Conglomerates in North America used copyright litigation to limit the damage to their bottom lines until the could adapt and catch up with an on-line delivery system of their own.[3] They go on to mention the idea of subscription-based sites where users would allowed unlimited usage for a monthly fee, which is what eventually happened.

                While I agree there is a cultural based aspect regarding the copyright issue that Lessig, Bradley, and Steinmetz and Tunnell all discuss, it all comes down to common sense that Lessig also mentions repeatedly. However, I spell my common sense the capitalist way as in dollars and cents, which is what others and I were avoiding spending and what the media companies claimed they were losing. This why it became such big issue, but do not worry the media companies will adapt again and again and get their money just  as we will to find ways to get their copyrighted properties for free.

               

 

 

 

[1] Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behaviour. 34 (1), pg. 53-67, 59.

Aside

The Good The Bad and The Ugly

15 Jun

My video is about the good and the bad of social media and misconceptions I had before this class started. I take up the role of the Illiterate Parent again and show how my eyes have been opened to the world of social media by interacting within this class forum as well as with my daughter. It is a simply produced video with images found on Google and some music I thought worked well lyrically with the topic as well as being favourites of mine. One thing I would like to add is how much fun this and even though I did have some trouble editing I wish I had learned how to do this sooner. Either way my introduction to the process of creating, editing and posting videos has gone from one I first thought of as mission impossible to one of  mission accomplished, though there is a spelling error which I decided to leave in. After all, I am the Illiterate Parent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAbk444iTXI

The Illiterate Parent Learns Another Social Media Lesson.

11 Jun

       Most posts and responses seemed to centre a round the majority being a consumer and the copyright issue being one of big business that was an inevitable and necessary evil. What I have learned is that part of my problem is the lack of confidence I have in posting on Facebook or responding to a tweet. There is this perception, which may only be in my head that I am too old for this and will come off sounding silly or even judgemental which is obviously a generational thing that I need to overcome.

             What I am becoming more aware of is how integral and important social media is to the people that use it. The course twitter account posted a link for Social Media Day (Why not, there is a day for everything else though I am willing to bet Rogers and Bell were behind it) where people were asked to respond to the question “What does Social media mean to you?” I was amazed at some of the answers.  For some it was a way of earning a living, others their main line of communicating and some even claimed that it defined who they were as people. I had never really contemplated it from that perspective. What ever the reason with constant connection and the immediate access accorded us with Smart Phones the ability to communicate on this platform was of utmost importance to them. Then I read the statistics pertaining to social media usage and was amazed. One billion on Facebook and 400 million tweets a day is an incredible amount that is only going to continue to grow.[1] The effect this has on the exchanging of ideas and cultural by products is immense. You tube is obviously wonderful for that, allowing the easy access to those who want to absorb popular culture from the present and the past. The tweet sent out earlier on the course feed about the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam making hi-quality prints of their famous art collection available on-line free to download shows that it is not just popular culture being shared in the cyber-world. The museum stated that the problems with controlling copyrights led to their decision to post good images online rather than have others pirating poor representations.[2] However, with numbers like those mentioned earlier it is easy to understand why copyright is such a hot button topic; there is a lot of money to be made.

            As an older student being re-trained for the current job market I am realizing I cannot just sit dip my toe or wade in a bit for a quick dip when it comes to social media. My idea for this blog was as the social media illiterate parent where the children he was trying to raise knew more than he did. Well keeping with the swimming metaphor, I helped them gain confidence as young swimmers in a real pool, maybe they and other young people can help me keep my head above water in the social media pool until I have the confidence to do so on my own.

 

Links:

“CPCF2F00: Mashable: What Does Social Media Mean to You? http://t.co/3p60u82i5H. Answers divided between marketing & social networks.”
—http://twitter.com/CPCF2F00/status/341971410664697856

http://toddlersandtiaras2.blogspot.ca/

[1] CPCF2F00: Mashable: What Does Social Media Mean to You? http://t.co/3p60u82i5H. Answers divided between marketing & social networks.”
—http://twitter.com/CPCF2F00/status/341971410664697856

[2] “CPCF2F00: Rijksmuseum posts hi-res images of masterpieces for free. Best part: dir. of collections name (Taco Dibbets) http://t.co/giR2KkEXLg“
—http://twitter.com/CPCF2F00/status/340844695452266499

 

My Online Diet

6 Jun

Online consumption is new way of looking at my cyber habits. We were late to the Internet party at my house just like the social media world, though jumped in full bore once we arrived. Once introduced I generously consumed my share though I never thought of it in those terms  because what I was viewing was free, which is the genesis of the issue of Culture-as-Commons vs. Culture-as-Commerce. As with anything fun and entertaining, there is always the idea of how to make  profit from it.

I have always been a consumer online. I read and watched things I was interested in or enjoyed. Newspapers were no longer purchased along with magazines and music as well.  I used You-tube in exactly the way Rizzo describes. As an attraction where I watched free concert clips of performers I liked or humorous clips that people had posted of themselves, others or pets.[1] I did not view myself as a participant in the digital economy or even the social-media world. I had avoided corporate world’s greed for profit from online content, or so I thought. For me the new media convergence increased with the advancement in smart phones. Where  as six years ago 2.2 billion were using mobile phones, as Manovich discussed, now I can not imagine the numbers using smart phones today. From that, platform users are constantly connected and able to contribute to the online and social media community. However, they are also readily available to marketing and sales and of course, data usage charges of the all watching and controlling Big Brother media conglomerates. She talks of a people broadcasting their lives on line becoming as easy as sending an email in the future.[2]  Now with smart phone, Twitter, Facebook and the rest all have the technology and ability in their hands to do so.  They also have the ability to create  and edit things online into remixes and mash-ups. Unfortunately, as Jenkins writes most are not exploiting that ability for their own gain either financially or through media exposure as he hoped  Jim Carey’s character would have in The Truman Show. Instead, they are being exploited by those media companies, who from the top down make a profit on those cultural media platforms that users drive and popularize from the bottom up.[3] New ideas will emerge allowing free exchange of ideas and culture, however so will ways to control it and profit from it be it advertising or pay for usage domains such is the capitalist world we live in.

For me those platforms are a bit intimidating especially as The Illiterate Parent. I have commented on the occasional You-tube video or online article, but that was it. However, with my new found literacy I have posted real time pictures and comments from  recent trips to NHL hockey games with my children (with a little help from them) though that is it. I am not yet comfortable with the technology and still fear myself being exploited the wrong way, much like the media companies exploit our need to be online and connected and along with it my bank account

[1] Teresa Rizzo YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions

http://scan.net.au/SCAN/journal/display.php?journal_id=109

[2] Lee Manovich, THE PRACTICE OF EVERYDAY (MEDIA) LIFE

version: March 10, 2008, http://www.manovich.net/articles.php

3 H. Jenkins,. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence  International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43, 37.

The Illiterate Parent Learns to Like Wikipedia

1 Jun

             

     Image

   My 12 year old daughter.

 

    Whether we should be concerned about the reliability of sources on Wikipedia is an issue that I had little concern for before I started blogging as The Illiterate Parent. For me just learning how to navigate my self around the world my children seemed to live in was challenging enough. However, once I embraced some of these platforms I found myself more engaged, interested and aware of what went on in that cyber world that they existed in  that for a while, I was either unable to or uninterested in entering. While looking for different resources of my own to help me with the challenges of parenting children in the social media world I found many useful sites, but never envisioned Wikipedia as one of those. Further reading showed me something different, that it was, not just a simple online encyclopaedia, but in fact by 2006 the third most popular online information and news resource.[1] It took one search of my blog topic, which led me to the page for Amanda Todd for me to realize I was wrong and reliable sources or not here is why the rest of you with children online and who like me were a little ignorant should view it.

            The Wikipedia page devoted to the tragic suicide of Amanda Todd showed me the benefits that Wikipedia has to offer when dealing with issues like online parenting. I was aware of the Amanda Todd suicide and viewed it with the same disgust and concern that the rest of us did. Yet, I ignorantly viewed it as something that was little concern to me. It would never happen some to anyone I know let alone my daughter, but reading this page and a social media incident with my daughter made me realize how wrong I was. Social Media is powerful with a long and ever reaching grasp concerning both time and space. That power is something to be concerned about and Wikipedia helped show me the extent that it played in the decision of this young woman to tragically take her own life.

            The reliability of the sources that writers used for this page were mainly news media sites so they are surely solid. The fact that there were thirty-nine cited for a relatively short page shows the depth and scope that the contributors went to in composing the piece. The numerous references to Social Media and the impact it had really caught my attention. What really interested me though was the talk section of the page which prior to this I had never explored before. On that page, contributors and commentators seemed genuinely concerned about improving the page and showed little of the editing wars that Jensen wrote of in Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812.[2] In fact, many of the edits are the trivial one offs that he wrote of and of which I have no problem. [3] Those trivial comments were respectful to the online discussion that was intent on creating a page that was both informative, but also specific to the Todd story and the issues that surrounded it. One commentator felt that links that came up caused navigation problems that would take an interested reader to sites that had little relevance to the Amanda Todd page. Another request by a suicide prevention group to change the wording of Todd’s death from “committed suicide” to “died by suicide” and to have their site posted in the footnotes was managed in a reasonable and respectful manner.[4] The editor referring to the request reminded the poster that Wikipedia was an encyclopaedia source that would not “dumb down or soften” the language as it would affect the pages credibility and that they would be unable to post the web address because of site policy.[5] There was even a link to another Wikipedia talk page concerning the suicide of Kelly Yeoman’s. However, though these items did not appear in the article itself they were there to be read by all if one wanted to and that was eye opening. What Wikipedia has with the talk page is the perfect resource. It provides detailed and attempted unbiased  information that can be changed quickly and easily on the main page and by simply clicking a tab allows you to enter the discussion and see what has been questioned and  if  it was changed and why. Even those requests such as the posting of the suicide prevention website are there for others to browse if they choose just not on the main page. What Wikipedia has done is create the perfect setting for a document to have a social life just as Brown and Duguid wrote off in 1996. Their words described “the easy circulation of shared communications” that would help “build well-coordinated social groups with a strong sense of shared identity” and though well before the time of Wikipedia one wonders if that is what they envisioned.[6]

            My opinion of Wikipedia has moved from one pole to the other. Initially I saw it as a resource with many flaws much as I first saw other Social Networking Sites.

However, upon further examination at least as related to the issue that concerns my blog I now see it as a valuable resource that provides a continually changing and in depth account of the causes of Todd’s suicide and the effect it had on people in the online community. The large number of resources for a brief, but important story leaves me with little concern for the reliability of the resources while the reasoned and transparent manner that issues were discussed with on the talk page also impressed me. It is because of this as I wrote earlier that I will read this with my children to show them the effect that their online behaviour can have on themselves and others and the everlasting and severe consequences that could occur. For those in the same position as me I strongly suggest you do the same thing.

 

 

 

Other Blogs of similar content:

 http://mimmzz.wordpress.com/

http://toddlersandtiaras2.blogspot.ca/

https://simsblog87.wordpress.com/

[1] Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148. 139

 

[2] Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76,

    1. pp 1165-1182. 1168

[3] Ibid. , 1171.

← Older Entries