Potential government control of Internet access as ‘surveillant’ is cause for concern

The role of the Internet as a tool of mass communication is up for grabs. There is a global disconnect between the ways businesses, governments and their people hope to utilize the web in this increasingly wired world.

The Internet was meant to be guided by resplendent democratic principles, allowing all people across the world to share information at the click of a mouse. But recent events raise old questions about media’s place in protecting our values of both freedom and security.

Really think about the potency of the Internet in changing the ways we get things done. I’m talking about the way it was used (and not used) in Egypt this past month during a time of monumental accomplishment. I’m talking about the ways Google tracks our activity in ways the government can’t (yet) do.

I’m hesitant in that last statement because of President Obama’s recent budget proposal. What started as a plan to grow economic and social development has spawned another PATRIOT Act-type debate. According to an undisclosed informant in Washington, the proposal known as the Public Safety Broadband Network (which falls under the scope of the National Broadband Plan) expects to spend $10 billion over the next several years, including a proposed $354.2 million for the FCC next fiscal year and its goals of “strengthening the audit and investigation function of the Office of the Inspector General; and supporting the Commission’s public safety and cybersecurity.” Basically, the plan seeks to provide as many people as possible with Internet access, which will also serve as a government surveillant.

Should the Net be monitored just as our cell phones and major cities are?

Let’s look at the example Egypt provides. In the midst of dissension over their governmental tyranny, Egyptian citizens turned to Facebook as the catalyst for their revolution. During the height of the protests, President Mubarak’s government attempted to quell their dissidents by blacking out the country’s Internet and cell phone services. For five days, there was little to no way for Egyptians to communicate via broadband.

We see a form of this communication suppression in China all the time, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.

There’s also the ongoing struggle over the pond as EU antitrust chief Joaquín Almunia investigates Google’s online practices. Cultural differences between US and European ideas of privacy have the latter working to keep Google from dominating its technology sector the way it has in America. And rightly so: The original advertising-based search engine server now has annual worldwide revenue more than $29 billion with monopolistic hopes to continue its expansion across all media platforms.

It’s this confusion across all components of our society that has me worried. I think about the recent NBC-Comcast merger and think, “Who’s to stop them from deciding who I can or can’t talk to?”

Maybe the term ‘Net Neutrality’ doesn’t have you questioning the way we communicate with one another. In due time, it will. We may not yet be able to see where we will go from this crossroads. But as we see these enormously powerful government and corporate entities take on the Internet, we must be privy to its implications in our daily lives.

for more information  on the topic, check out freepress.com or the NYTimes archives.

2/28 edit: Listening to University Professor Bob McChesney’s Media Matters

show is illuminating for its thoughtful discussions with prominent media minds.  In the Feb. 13, 2011 episode, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said, “‘Network Neutrality’ is a god-awful term and I think we should start out by calling it ‘Internet Freedom’ or the ‘Open Internet.’  It basically means to me that consumers should be able to go online and access the legal content of their choice…be able to enjoy benefits of some competition.  There should be openness and transparency in how the system is run and there should be strong principles of non-discrimination so that everyone can participate equally.  If the Internet’s going to be our town square of democracy, and our town square of democracy is going to be paved with broadband bricks we have to make sure that every citizen has access to that…My belief is that the freedom to access Internet websites of our choosing and our freedom to access each other is a defining freedom of the 21st century.  Freedom of expression online is no different than freedom of expression in a town square or from a podium.”

Shipka’s Sound Engineering article

My Questions

1. How much credit should be given to sound engineers in their sonic alterations of content that was not originally theirs?  Does this go along with our discussion of different sound elements from last week?

2. The idea of playing off of others’ weaknesses stems from Shipka’s example of Val.  To what extent should a person create a message specifically geared as a response to someone else’s negativity?  How blatantly negative should you be with broadcast or broadband media?

3. Stemming off this question, how often should irony be utilized in message presentation?  Sometimes, the message can get lost if the audience doesn’t understand the facetious combination of different media elements.

My Responses to Others’ Questions

In response to Ariel’s question, I do agree with Val’s decision to test her audience in whatever way she feels comfortable.  It’s her creation – she’s the one providing the experience and trying to derive meaning.  If she wants the project to go over enthusiastically, great.  If not, that’s fine too.  Whether she meant to have a dry presentation or not, I praise her for being original.

Richard Question #1 Response: I think that the latter appears to be true.  Academia has been transferred via scholarly writings for a very long time now and I think that because it’s been effective in the past, people assume that it’s the most effective way in the future.  I think McCloud’s cartoon article was incredibly effective because he used a different medium to convey intelligent information.  Maybe it’s a sign of the times that we as humans need the pictures he provides, but I think the contrary and I think McCloud would, too.  It’s a very important topic because it takes both dogged willingness to learn about a topic before thoughtfully applying it to a real-world experience.

#2 Response: I think that in order to attain genius status it is important that a person is in some ways self-taught.  This encompasses ‘just playing around’ because the more a person dabbles with an enterprise and becomes familiar with it on his own term, the more he makes it his own.  Practice makes perfect in all cases because by first knowing about a topic, you can then effectively take on variations of the topic.

#3 Response: I enjoy both playing around and reading linear text because they both offer different ways of thinking about our topic.  Whereas an essay requires critical thinking in an attempt to form an argument, there is also a need for more creative exploration.  I think that this class has offered more of the latter so far.

On Multimodality: When I hear the word ‘sound’, my first associations with the noun are the words ‘freedom’ and ‘nature’.  I also really like the adjective because it reminds me of safety, confidence, and preparedness.  In attaining multimodal soundness, I hope to incorporate a number of different types of noun sound in a comprehensive way that produces an adjective soundness that is obvious to my audience.

My take on class discussion

The more we talked during the class, the more intrigued I became with the topic.  Hannah, I think you really led the discussion well because at first our class was kind of stuck in the doldrums.  After some prodding and a clear display of excitement for the topic, I think that you engaged us into inspired conversation.  We started getting into more philosophical topics such as engaging your senses, applying theory into practice, and also campy Southern folk.  There wasn’t enough time to thoroughly talk about these topics but I hope we revisit them later on!

Love being single on Valentine’s Day

I’ve heard it before, Cupid haters: “The media dictates our judgments about love and we therefore are pressured to become The Satisfier for a day.”

“Single” and “Valentine’s Day” usually don’t go hand in hand. But for me, V-Day is about somehow showing your love for someone else. I’m not saying I’m pro-Singles Awareness Day because that would be plain cynical. I’m saying that Feb. 14 is about making someone’s — anyone’s — day.

Also See

• You don’t have to be single to hate Valentine’s Day

Maybe I’m jaded, though, because I’ve “properly” celebrated it only twice before.

Does your definition of ‘love’ dictate your appreciation for the holiday? Is love a soul’s recognition of its counterpoint in another? Is it gettin’ hot with someone else and saying the first words that come to mind?

I just searched for quotes about ‘love’ and ‘romance’ online, and there was so much cheese I thought I was watching the FOX’s broadcast of the Super Bowl. However, I happened to agree with True Blood dolt Jason Stackhouse’s sentiment when he said, “When you love someone, you gotta love it all. Otherwise it ain’t love.” Dumb character on a dumb show, I know. But he sounds like someone who feels good about the person he’s with.

I remember sixth grade, sitting at my computer around 1 a.m. on Valentine’s Day — don’t tell my mom — typing sweet nothings into my cyber-lover’s eyes. I can promise I was smiling like a butcher’s dog when she put my initials into her AIM profile that night. This was no ‘Facebook pic’ smile, either. This was the smile of a boy who was thrilled about some indescribable thing.

Or how about Feb. 14, 2004, when I was bewitched by the girl with too much perfume? I walked her all the way home (six miles out of my way) for a hug — the ultimate show of devotion for a high school freshman.

Forget the flowers and toss out the Tiffany’s. Valentine’s Day can at least be entertaining. You don’t HAVE to be single and you don’t HAVE to have a partner to enjoy this holiday.

This is coming from a guy who falls in love with one half of waitresses or girls working behind counters. And this is not a matter of sexual fantasy; I can’t help the prospect of meeting someone I didn’t expect to. I don’t know how else to say this, girls, but I want to say hello to you. Is that so wrong? As long as there’s no Joe Black coffee shop incident, why shouldn’t I be hopeful on V-Day?

Maybe the holiday was created so we could eat little candy hearts that read, “Let’s make it.” Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if this was the case. Sweethearts taste good and say nice things. If it helps me make someone else smile, I’ll take it.

 

Finding meaning in a number

In my favorite episode (season two finale) of my favorite television show (The West Wing), President Jed Bartlett has an argument with his secretary about the country’s problems and general direction (I’d provide a link, but it’s too much of a spoiler). He’s often called ‘the smartest kid in the classroom,’ which is an ambiguous description.

The fictitious character came into the presidency as a leading economist and utilizes the power of a figure to help make proper judgments. While he’s clearly “a foot smarter than the smartest kids in class,” the term is used against him in saying that he is dispassionate. It’s going to take dedication to both statistical knowledge and understanding for us to make positive growth.

While emotions and memories can serve as indicators of progress, it’s going to be very important for all incoming corps members to track their progress with quantifiable figures.The NYTimes article from Feb. 14, 2011 about Harvard professor Ronald Ferguson can be a shining example for anyone who has a passion for social work, economics or education.

Now, I don’t want to take away from the overriding message of this commentary, which is recognizing the utility the world receives from people like Ferguson, but I have to add this video of President Bartlet pwning:

 

McKee Response

Paraphrase of McKee‘s argument:

Sound in multimedia compositions include: vocal delivery, music, special effects, and near-silence.  You can look at each individually or also in relation to visual and interactive modes as well.  Thus, I will first address the often tricky relationship of part-to-whole and whole-to-part

You need to take every element together in order to get the full effect.  What would a band be without its lead guitar?  It’s not enough to analyze one scene as an all-encompassing explanation of a movie, either.  That scene is important in relation to all the other scenes in telling a story.

I listened to the episode ‘Sinatra‘ from This American Life.  I loved the episode for its in-depth look at a legend we’re not all familiar with.  Ira Glass and other narrators don’t hold back in their analyses of The Chairman of the Board, who was incredibly multi-faceted and mysterious.  There are facts, opinions, sound clips, and background music that allude to Sinatra’s eccentricities.  The storytelling done by these narrators is gold; how they paint such us such a vivid picture with only our sense of sound is beyond me.  The stories are so filled with passion that I feel so much closer to Sinatra by the end of the program.

At different points in the episode, narrators depict Sinatra’s personality with pieces of stories they’d previously written.  The most solemn parts had no background music.  Each pause in the narrator’s speech left me hanging on the edge of a cliff.  Music would have distracted me; the silence said enough.  However, the mood was made lighter when a voiceless tune accented the story.  It was also utilized in transitioning from one idea to another, such as in going to a break.

The special effect clips were testaments to how powerful Sinatra’s personality was.  By broadcasting old audio footage of Sinatra, we get to see a number of aspects of his stage life, whether strong or pathetic.  The story would not have been nearly as effective without them.

A ‘thank you’ to teachers for their services

I sat in front of the TV, struggling to balance my temporary responsibilities and long-term goals. During his State of the Union address last Tuesday, President Obama argued for the importance of educators as our country continues to fall in academic rankings.

“In fact, every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice…”

My heart rate rose. He was talking directly to me. As he looked right into my soul, he said, “If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child…” He paused and I wanted to play Mad Libs and fill in the blank with, “Give them candy.” No dice, though, as Obama continued with his directive. “Become a teacher. Your country needs you.”

I felt so personally affected by this portion of the speech because of my pending choice to become a Teach For America corps member. After much contemplation, I decided that teaching for the next two years is the right choice for me.

This article is not about why my personal decision was a good one, nor is it an appraisal of the Teach For America program. This is an appreciation piece directed to all those who have chosen education as their profession. It’s a “thank you” to all those who have seen in us the potential to do great things.

When I tell people that I am committing two years to teaching in a low-achieving community, I often receive congratulatory responses regarding how noble my choice is. It’s time that the same appreciation is shown to all education majors, faculty, and staff who share the same ideals.

Until I seriously looked at Teach For America as a post-college option, I never realized the impact that teachers can have on their pupils. As privileged students of higher education, we are regarded as our nation’s most precious asset. Always remember, however, who helped us get here.

I am remorseful that I did not always appreciate my educators’ sacrifices. Their passion and dedication are often overlooked as course-related responsibilities can weigh down on our thirst for knowledge. Next time you play hooky or sit on Facebook during a discussion, think about what your actions say to the person who showed up ready to help you.

Obama is right in encouraging young Americans to explore teaching as one of our most important professions. “In South Korea, teachers are known as ‘nation builders,’” the President said. “Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect.”

Let’s think about the people who are there for us every time we go to class.

Teachers at every level should be acknowledged for their dedication to the process of learning. So next time you see a teacher get excited in the middle of a lecture, realize that this is all for you.

 

Image-text Project

I think that the most effective message taps into all three rhetorical conventions: ethos, pathos, and logos.  By utilizing strong reasoning, establishing a personal connection, and also making it applicable to a more community-based issue, I think I can utilize my medium to have an impact on the audience.

My image-text project will have something to do with newspapers.  While I believe that print news is important for everyone to pay attention to, recent technological and media trends may lead to the demise of the newspaper as we know it.  Gripping headlines that personally address the reader (first person frame) could be a very effective way to appeal to anyone, but I’m not yet sure how I can do this.  I may just change the headlines on the page, but I might also try to incorporate the Internet into it somehow.  Print news’ spacial limitations (compared to the infinite nature of the Internet) are often seen as inhibitive, but I think that the contrary could be something for me to look into.

I hope that my audience responds by questioning their relationship with the information they receive.  Hopefully, they will become aware of how the medium by which they receive information affects their how they understand news.  The pathos aspect of my argument will be that the image-text is a reaction that is meant to duly create a response from the audience.

More things I’ll need to think about:

authorship: who/what are my influences? Who will manage the pieces of this object’s composition? I thought this was an interesting example of how tricky questions of authorship can become: The short story Benjamin Button is by F. Scott Fitzgerald and was written in 1921. Forrest Gump was written by Winston Groom in 1986. Since the movie Forrest Gump came out before Benjamin Button, we might say that the writers of the Pitt movie copied some of the thematic and story elements of Hanks movie–but that is kind of weird, seeing as the story Benjamin Button is over 6o years older. Is it possible that Groom borrowed from Fitzgerald when he created Gump? Is it a coincidence? Is the BB short story even that similar to the movie?

process: what steps do I need to take to get me there? Prewriting, writing, revision still apply, but perhaps have a bit of a different feel when we compose media objects. It may require a different kind of planning process.

context/situatedness: where is this media object going to be presented? How does that influence your composition of the object? What other influence does social/cultural/historical context have on the meaning of the object?

Response to McCloud Reading

Scott McCloud’s book, Understanding Comics, is so effective because it is both entertaining and thought-provoking.  Both of these qualities stem from how the book is framed; he uses a cartoon depiction of himself to narrate how icons reflect their creators’ propensities for art, nature, and ideas.  The book requires words and pictures to argue that the most intelligent comics deliberately use both forms of expression.

I loved the reading because the “this is not a pipe” logic forces readers to re-think their observations.  I thought that the realm of the concept versus the realm of the senses poses many questions about the human experience and reality.

This is not an argument

After reading the article, I’ve formed a number of questions about icons and symbols:

1) Amplification through simplification is an interesting concept because it suggests that a real person can change his image when there is a fictional representation of him.  What does it say about a person when they are caricatured on television shows like The Simpsons or South Park?  Does that person lose/ gain legitimacy as a human entity because he gives consent to an image that takes away from his agency?  Does it depend upon what the caricature represents?

2) “If who I am matters less [because the author is represented by a cartoon], maybe what I say matters more.”  This idea is striking because it highlights how messages’ effectiveness depend upon how the message is presented in the particular medium.  Why does a less personal message make a less effective message, as the author suggests?

In response to Annie’s question, I do not think that images will replace words completely.  However, it’s obvious that commercialism and advertising have led to fewer words and more images.  These images do not explain very much about the product, but they are effective because they encite desireable emotions within consumers.  Nike shoe commercials, for example, can show a man jumping on top of a building or running faster than a rain cloud can catch up.  This says nothing about why Nike shoes are better than Adidas shoes — people want to be able to defy nature, though, and the commercial makes them believe that some white Nikes can help them do just that.  I don’t think words will be replaced completely because of their ability to say what images can not.  The thrill of imagining what’s described in a text provides a necessary piece that an image can not supply.

Why I Write

I want to express, I want to speak, and sometimes, I just want to clear my mind.  I record my memory so that maybe someday, I can create a story that will add to someone else’s experience.  The idea of sharing my experience to a mass audience is terrifying, but I am compelled to do it for an even greater fear of having not said anything in the first place.