Who’s Hussein? July 1, 2008
Posted by nikkileon in : digital opportunities, digital civic engagement, digital identity , add a commentSwitch your name on Facebook, and the New York Times will declare a national movement.
Maybe that’s not exactly how it happens, but a recent Times article suggests that changing your Facebook moniker may actually be far more significant than, say, uploading a new batch of photos. The June 29th piece, which made the front page of the Times website, traces what appears to be a trend among young Obama supporters, some of whom have informally adopted the middle name Hussein to show loyalty to their candidate. Their object is twofold: first, to reject opponents’ attempts at making Obama’s middle name a campaign issue and second, to demonstrate that, in the words of blogger and Obama supporter Jeff Strabone, “We are all Hussein.” This statement is meant to be a declaration of solidarity in the vein of “I am Spartacus,” a 1960 film in which Roman slaves attempt to protect one of their number from solitary execution by declaring that they, too, are Spartacus. To this end, some Obama acolytes have not only adopted the name on Facebook, but have also begun to sign their checks with it or to have their friends append “Hussein” when addressing them. The trend only goes so far, however. As the Times reports, “Legally changing names is too much hassle, participants say, so they use ‘Hussein’ on Facebook and in blog posts and comments on sites like nytimes.com, dailykos.com and mybarackobama.com, the campaign’s networking site.”
What’s to be made of all this unofficial renaming? Is it a revolution, as the tone of the Times article seems to imply? Or is it, as the title of one critical blog suggests, only so much hot air? It’s hard not to be skeptical. The article consists mainly of testimonials from those who have already adopted the name Hussein, omitting any alternative viewpoints that might lend some perspective on the trend. To be fair, reporter Jodi Kantor does throw in one mitigating phrase about halfway through — “The movement is hardly a mass one, and it has taken place mostly online, the digital equivalent of wearing a button with a clever, attention-getting message” — but because she presents no sources or statistics to buttress it, the statement seems like an afterthought. And really, what does changing a username prove, other than the fact that you have internet access?
My initial fear in reading the article was that Kantor’s coverage only substantiates what Mark Bauerlein and others have already alleged – that today’s youth are the “Dumbest Generation,” a demographic that equates activism with fashion items and the Facebook causes everybody puts on their profile but never actually contributes to. Indeed, responses to a handful of blog posts critical of the article include such choice lines as “What a bunch of dillweeds” (at HotAir Headlines) and “Just stoopid kids” (on Sweetness and Light). The piece itself does little to counter this impression: the five newly-minted Husseins in the accompanying photo are posed more like a rock band than a group of political volunteers, and the arrangement of the subjects suggests the photographer was particularly concerned with showcasing the most photogenic members of the group. The article also dodges a more significant point – that adoption of the name among young people reflects both growing acceptance of Muslims and a rejection of the anti-Islamic sentiment often promoted by critics focused on Obama’s middle name (and yes, to say it again, Obama is Christian, not Muslim).
It appears to me that the Mark Bauerleins and Jodi Kantors of the world, despite their divergent impressions of young people, are all guilty of the same thing: oversimplification. Their portrayals of Digital Natives gloss over the legitimate and difficult work youth are doing to address a variety of international and domestic issues — whether launching NGOs like TakingITGlobal, which promotes youth activism in various social and political arenas, or running national grassroots organizations like ObamaWorks, which organizes community-oriented service projects.
Teenage frippery, which usually involves toying with identity, has always gone hand in hand with youthful idealism and achievement; nowhere is this combination more pronounced than online. As danah boyd notes, young people today are no different from the youth of generations past, and much of what they do online (hanging out, listening to music) is normal, real–life behavior that has simply been transferred to a digital space (albeit with additional opportunities and risks presented by the new medium). Just as these activities take place both online and off, so too do youth activism and political engagement. It seems that both Kantor and the advocates of the “Dumbest Generation” argument have been misled by the blurring of young people’s private and public faces, confused, perhaps, by the fact that teenagers’ shallow and serious tendencies are expressed simultaneously in the enduring public space of the web.
Kantor and reporters like her would do well to acknowledge this balance and to cover stories in a way that reflects what young people are really doing in the world today: defining themselves, determining their loyalties, and doing much more to bring about change than just tweaking their usernames.
Digital Natives Return, or How the Web Became Your New Civics Class June 12, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital civic engagement, digital identity , 1 comment so farWith Berkman’s summer term in full swing, the Digital Natives blog is back! Check regularly for more thoughts from our principle investigators, fellows, research assistants, and (a new cast of) interns. Also in store for the summer: a slew of audio and video podcasts, as well as the publication of John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s Born Digital. For the time being, enjoy this post.
Now that much of the initial press reaction to Barack Obama’s Democratic nomination has surfaced, it seems time to offer a perspective from the Digital Natives Project, one informed both by youth culture and by contemporary academic theories of citizenship and education. Obama’s appeal is frequently discussed in terms of the former – his message of change, his success as a brand, his youth – but rarely is it explored simultaneously from the standpoint of a young person and of an academic (though I’m admittedly still pretty green).
Digital Natives are different from their parents not only because of what they do online but because of the way they learn, and this affects their political involvement directly. Henry Jenkins of MIT’s New Media Literacies Project writes that Digital Natives engage best in “participatory cultures” fostered by the web, environments
with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another.
Clear examples of participatory culture include SNSs, like Facebook and MySpace, and content-sharing websites such as Flickr and YouTube. My.BarackObama, a campaign-supported SNS that lets supporters form groups, blog, plan events, and raise money, is built on this model. I do not bring up My.BarackObama to rehash discussions of how it capitalizes on the social networking trend; that has already been addressed both by youth and by the press (as a quick Google search of “Obama youth appeal” reveals). Rather, I urge you to pay attention to a specific characteristic of participatory culture that Jenkins names — the aspect of “mentorship” – and consider its implications here. Participatory culture is, among many things, educational. Perhaps Obama’s campaign is appealing not only for its style, but also because it encourages a learning-by-doing approach to civics, aided by interaction with peers and more experienced political activists, that engages DNs with the topic in a way their school programs may not.
This is not to say that all Digital Natives are consciously seeking lessons in politics. Instead, DNs are most likely drawn to the sense of empowerment that comes in gaining such knowledge. This stands in sharp contrast to the civics education offered in most public schools. As Lance Bennett of the Center for Communication and Civic Education at the University of Washington points out, mainstream civics courses are often taught in a rote, top-down fashion, rather than in the peer-oriented, interactive style Digital Natives prefer. The testing-driven environment of public schools also inhibits civics education. Consequently, 27% of students failed a national civics test administered in 2007 (the test is given every five years). Princeton professor Theodore K. Rabb told the Times this was “not anything to break out the Champagne over[.]” It appears mainstream civics education is outdated – with an emphasis on mainstream news over citizen journalism, voting over activism – and as such, does little to introduce students to the process of political involvement in a digital age, let alone instill them all with permanent knowledge (Bennett writes about this in the aforelinked essay). Movements like Obama’s, on the other hand, transform students into learners and activists immediately by allowing them to engage online. Obama’s SNS has become a new kind of civics instructor, and as November approaches, McCain would be wise to heed the shift as well.
LIVEBLOGGING: Civic Engagement and the Youth Vote in the 2008 Elections May 14, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital civic engagement, berkman@10 , 3commentsWe’re at the Civic Engagement and the Youth Vote in the 2008 Elections cohosted by Kennedy School of Government Institute for Politics and Berkman Center.
Our own John Palfrey is moderating the discussion with,
Jesse Dylan, HopeActChange.org and Director/Producer of the will.i.am “Yes We Can” video
Wes Hill, co-Founder of HopeActChange.org
Ari Melber, The Nation Magazine
Jeff Frazee, National Youth Coordinator, Ron Paul 2008
Jesse Dylan: “Yes We Can” video went viral because people saw the power of Obama’s words and connected to the desire of change expressed
Ari Melber: With Internet, we have a completely new metrics of measuring political participation. Videos and social networking are like the “gateway drug” to getting politically involved.
Jeff Frazee: Facebook’s big limitation - inability to message mass users. Using Facebook to directly communicate with campus leaders on the Ron Paul campaign. Logged on to Facebook to get latest news on the campaign.
AM: Ron Paul’s campaign used creative ways of involving people in the campaign - “a collective, bottom-up project” - beyond just donating funds. McCain has failed to use SNS to engage people. But, successful in engaging conservative blogosphere (weekly bloggers conference call, talks through differences).
John Palfrey: What’s the story going to be like in campaign 2012? And what is the thing we should each to as an intervention to make a positive story happen?
JD: It doesn’t take money to reach the people you want to
JP: Is it real or a myth that young people are more able to take advantage of this medium?
JD: I don’t think young people are particularly set to benefit more. Young people are voting more because they need change.
JP: So each of us has more power to do something because we’re connected to the net?
Wes Hill: That’s the message with HOPEACTCHANGE.org Message of the week::action of the week
JP: Video has taken a more important aspect here. Is there something beyond video?
JD: It’s about telling stories - video is easier to watch than reading - the web is an opportunity to tell stories in a non-linear way. By 2012, will be more ways to tell stories, not just through narrative video.
JF: Some of the most powerful media was not initiatied by campaign, but by individuals who rose to the top. Advice for next time: “See what’s out there, listen to the people, allow people to have some ownership of the campagain”
JP: Continued youth involvement in politics and civic engagement?
AM: The counter culture is the culture. The media has failed - this has created real receptivity to counter narratives. With the platforms set up, it’s game on.
JP: Game on - opening questions up to the floor.
Diane Tucker: Is there anything to be learned from Huckabee experience? Bulk of his work came from youth from outside his campaign?
JF: Ron Paul and Obama groups the biggest on college campuses.
AM: From data, huge fissure among democrats: youth for Obama, older voters for Clinton. Didn’t see same split for republicans.
Q: While Internet is powerful, real-space networks more powerful. How has f2f network changed?
JP: Is this an internet story? How much is this change really due to technologies?
JD: Real story is change. People want to see change in the country.
AM: Moveon.org is a largely online network. Facebook is totally different - grounded in real-space identification. Real people, real network - very potent for political action.
Q: Is Obama campaing not just getting youth involved based on exciting soundbites? Is this not just superficial?
JD: Obama has said more than soundbites.
AM: If we are heading towards video, which focuses more on mode of saying rather than content of saying, this is problematic for democracy. This may lead to the beautiful people having to much power. BUT, what we are seeing on YouTube is not just soundbites - lots of people, especially young people are watching beyond the soundbite.
Vicki Nash: Youth vote may be happening in the US, what about the rest of the world? How much is this about American Exceptionalism?
JF: Technology is culturally neutral just like it’s politically neutral. Just a vehicle. [MS: what about the cultural bias inherent in technologies, largely coming out of Silicon Valley?]
VN: Can’t imagine Obama Girl in the UK
JD: Necessity to use the web is where the web will come in to play.
Q: Presidential campaign is the only time the whole nation comes together. What do you do with a national base and this energy of virtual community in our political system? (what happens in the down time)
JF: We need to localize politics. Identify city, state, congressional races to mobilize people for. Where can we effect change?
AM: Pick good fights with deadlines, villifiable opponents, and concrete goals. This is why climate change is hard to organize people for. Something more specific that people can get their head around.
JD: People connect to stories. There needs to be vision for people to respond.
Charles Nesson: How can I get a presidential candidate poker game to happen? The connection between real and virtual in terms of storytelling is so strong. You program something virtual and it becomes real. For eg, in the democratic party there needs to be a story of reconciliation. How do we make this story real?
JD: Hillary is Chagall (same picture every day), Obama is Picasso (different picture every day). Obama hasn’t been a great frontrunner.
CN: Would love to see my youtube video go viral. If Obama stand for change, he has the opportunity
Q: Is the openess of the internet really bring us further for democracy, or are the rules of the game just going to change, and the same players will learn to take advantage and manipulate the process?
Q: What about the participation gap? Disenfranchising those with out access?
Q: Young people get that online action has to mirror real space action, while older people are missing out on the interconnection of online and real space. Will this continue? What are implications?
AM: upsurge of youth vote is limited to educated youth. non-college educated youth does not enjoy this upsurge. Presidential campaigns are not incentives to spend money on this demographic.
JF: internet is breaking down bottleneck. free market of ideas will further democracy.
JD: outsider being able to be heard will just improve on the net.
Q&A with Alexander Heffner, Founder of Scoop08 March 11, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital civic engagement , add a comment(cross posted from Berkman Center site)
Heffner, Founder of Scoop08, will be joining us at the Berkman Center to present at our weekly Tuesday Luncheon series at 12:30 PM ET. The event will be webcast live, and there are still seats available if you’d like to join us in person (email rsvp@cyber.law.harvard.edu if you plan to attend).
Berkman Center intern Yvette Wohn conducted an email Alexander, where they discussed new media, the election, and the difference between blogging and journalism.
What elements of “old school journalism” are you implementing into your new media?
In every feature on the site, we try to preserve the quality of our journalism to offer substantive reporting as well as a breadth of opinion. We distinguish between the work of our news correspondents and that of our columnists. And we try to thoroughly develop our stories and engage student editors and reporters in a virtual newsroom, in which they can interact and trade ideas before a piece is published. We care about ideas…fresh, innovative ones that will motivate young people to engage in the political process. For instance, earlier this primary season, we proposed a bi-partisan debate between both the Democratic and Republican contenders. We argued that such a forum would challenge the typical parameters of political discourse and not merely pander to the party bases. Another old-school style we like is the Q&A; one of our writers recently published an interview with New York City Mayor MIke Bloomberg about his flirtation with the presidency.
How does the editorial board deal with fact-checking?
Scoop08, like professional media outlets, has a crew of copy editors and fact-checkers. We pride ourselves on adopting the standards of classic print journalism, while still offering frequently updated rapid-fire blog reports and follow-up stories.
Is Scoop08 a blog or a news site? What do you think is the difference between the two?
Scoop08 is a news site, which contains a regularly updated blog of student observations on the presidential race. We are an online student periodical, which aims to publish the work — news and opinion — of as many young people as possible. Unlike blogs, news sites tend to offer more hard fact and to shape a diverse editorial voice, rather than promote an individual or group’s political views.
How different do you think campaign coverage is, if it done by students (especially from those who don’t have voting power)?
Many of our students are (or will be) eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential election. That said, regardless of age, the student lens is always intriguing. Students are more closely linked than many reporters to the world of academia, to their history textbooks, and to the study of politics. Our college and high school reporters offer insight into what students (and their professors) are thinking about 2008 political headlines.
Are the majority of your student participants under the age of 25?
Yes, if not every one. Our students participants come from across the educational spectrum, mostly in college and high school.
What kind of incentive do the writers have in working for Scoop08?
Scoop08’s engine is fired by the volunteer efforts of students across the nation. The incentive, in part, is feeling empowered in assuming a critical role in our democracy — and consolidating the student voice in a productive way. Besides the philosophical incentive, it’s an excellent way for students to develop their interest in journalism, both for first-timers and more seasoned journos.
What happens to Scoop08 after the election?
At the moment, we’re focused intensely on covering the 2008 presidential race: all of the remaining candidates, the central policy debates, the lead-up to the conventions, and every possible conceivable angle. In the coming months, Scoop08 plans to intensify its efforts to break news with more original, investigative reporting. We’re also in the process of assembling a team of chief correspondents in every state to cover what might be an unprecedented nationwide contest. Scoop08 version 2.0, an upgraded site launching soon, will also connect us to a broader cross-section of the blogosphere with more links to non-Scoop08 online stories that we encourage our readers to see. But after this year, we hope to continue reporting on the political scene and public affairs…the 2010 midterm elections, the 2012 race for the White House, and beyond.
The Internet: Politics as usual? March 5, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital civic engagement , add a comment(cross posted from Corinna di Gennaro’s blog)
With the primaries in full swing and the upcoming elections, one cannot but ponder what role new technologies such as the Internet are playing in facilitating citizens’ engagement in the political process. Is the Internet actually making a difference?
The Internet has certainly lowered the barriers of participation – if one wants to get involved, there are numerous arguably low cost ways to do so. Social networking sites such as Facebook allow users to join groups or become supporters of one’s favorite politician. Political satire DIY videos abound on YouTube, from the downright entertaining to the more engaged ones. Finally, there is a series of innovative websites, for example Scoop08, VoteGopher and Generation Engage, which are entirely made up of user generated content allowing (especially young) people to voice their opinions and engage in political discussion.
But does online political participation matter if it does not eventually translate into some tangible offline outcome such as for example turnout at the ballots or door to door canvassing? To put it in other words, is the online participatory culture promoted by the Internet meaningful in itself - if it does not translate into a (offline) participatory democracy? Similarly, does offline political participation which was originated online matter if it is only short term and episodic (for example taking part in a protest organized on Facebook)? Is one off participation as valuable as long term commitment to a cause? After all, some of the most successful online ventures such as MoveOn.org and MeetUp.com can ascribe a big part of their accomplishments to the fact that they are rooted in local communities and offline social networks.
It is being argued that the Internet is really making a difference for young people’s political engagement. There is some evidence that the current generation of 18-24 year olds is more civically engaged than previous generations of young people. While it can be argued that Web 2.0 tools, from social networking sites to YouTube are the domain of the young, can we safely assume that it is the Internet which is playing a major role in engaging young people in the political process? How do we isolate the impact of the Internet from other exogenous factors such as the war in Iraq, the years of the Bush administration, or the 9/11 attacks as political scientist Robert Putnam has recently claimed?
While the Dean campaign was greeted as the first Internet election, online fundraising was the main feature of the novelty. Much has changed since then, thanks to the new opportunities for involvement provided by Web 2.0 tools. Unfortunately, studying these new trends is often fraught with methodological difficulties: how can we quantify the aggregate effect of the thousands of videos uploaded on YouTube; or of the scattered conversations and strategic planning which takes place online on politicians websites, users’ blogs and Facebooks groups? Perhaps the most important question to be asked is whether and how the Internet is contributing to the empowerment of individuals – as political efficacy and political trust are necessary conditions for becoming involved in the political process.
Young People Who Rock: Alexander Heffner February 12, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital opportunities, digital civic engagement, digital learning, digital creativity , add a comment(cross posted from John Palfrey’s blog)
One of the big questions in the digital world is whether the way people use the Internet will lead to stronger democracies — or, in fact, have the opposite effect. This debate is playing out in the United States and around the world. In China, activists use online bulletin boards to organize themselves for the first time across geographic boundaries. In Iran, young people are using blogs to make their voice heard when the state is shutting down established media outlets. At the same time, China and Iran are using the same technologies for quite different aims: to censor what political activists are saying, listening in on their conversations, and putting activists in jail for what they’ve said and done online. The vibrant political blogosphere in the United States has become a political force, to be sure, but many question whether its influence is for good or for ill.
Alexander Heffner and his team at Scoop08 are proving that we have reason for hope. CNN, appropriately, has just made him one of its “Young People Who Rock.” Alexander’s leadership, and the engagement of more than 400 young people, is an inspiration to those of us who have been pushing hard to ensure that the Internet has a positive impact, not a negative one, on politics in the long-term. There’s been a lot written about them: here, here, and here. Alexander has a radio program, too.
Alexander’s work is so important because he is providing a means for young people to prove to themselves that they can have an impact through social action. The Internet is secondary to this story, in a way: the point is that Scoop08 draws young people into a public, civic space. It enables young people to have a voice that is heard all around the world. It demonstrates the power of collective action. It can help teach the responsibility and accountability that come with power, as young people come to see the impact of their words when they have a digital megaphone and are participating in a high-profile public debate.
The output of what Alexander and Scoop08 also gives us reason for hope. Scoop08 is a vibrant community that is helping to bring new and greater perspectives to election coverage around the country. One of the fears about the Internet and democracy is that we’ll each just surround ourselves with words and images from those with whom we’ll agree, famously called the “Daily Me” in the words of law professor Cass Sunstein. Scoop08 doesn’t fall into this trap. The student writers, based around the world, are telling their stories in a positive, careful, generally balanced way. Their coverage is serious and authentic. Their effort is to focus on substantive issues (policy, character-driven) — and distinctive and unconventional beats to generate new interest among young people — rather than exclusively horse-race-oriented coverage. The students writing up the reports are grappling with what it means to write without an exaggerated slant, presenting facts in a more or less neutral way, learning by doing in the process.
I look forward to Scoop08’s first big scoop. It will be a great day when one of Alexander’s extended team breaks a big story in this election, or an election to come somewhere else around the world.
But even before that day, it’s easy to say that Alexander Heffner and his colleagues have already succeeded beyond any reasonable expectations. What they’ve done, and what the good people at Generation Engage and other similar organizations, is no mean feat. Many have failed to get young people involved in politics. As the youth vote continues to rock — upwards — Scoop08 deserves credit for helping to create and sustain the enthusiasm of young people entering the political process for the first time. And the way they’re going about it stands a terrific chance of having a lasting impact on democracy.
(Disclosure: I am an unpaid advisor to Scoop08.)
My favorite DIY videos February 11, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital opportunities, video247, digital civic engagement, digital learning, digital creativity, digital identity , add a commentThere’s been so many great videos this weekend – hats off to the DIY curatorial team for really putting together a great show! It’s been great fun to see the videos usually seen in tiny little windows on the big screen. A few videos particularly stood out to me, and not too surprisingly, many of them made by young vidders.
Chongalicious: a great spoof on the song “Fergalicious”
Slip of the Toungue: A girl at a bus stop responds to the question ‘what is your ethnic makeup?’
Black Doll White Doll – a strong and sad discussion of race by talented young girls. Pre-schoolers still choose the white doll.
In My Language – an incredibly original, eloquent and powerful vlog by an autistic woman. Watch it.
Ballad of Black Mesa - this piece that will blow away most of the videos on MTV. The program describes it as “Half-Life 2 meets iPod commercial meets stomp.”
Bush vs. Zombies - George Bush addresses the zombie threat.
Mad as Hell - walking manifesto about work, life, and vlogging
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran - scary. funny. scary. watch this if you’re even thinking about voting for John McCain.
George Bush don’t like Black People - very cool remix about Katrina
The summit will be putting many of the videos screened up on their site soon. Be sure to check them out!
- Miriam Simun
DIY video: telling stories February 10, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : video247, digital civic engagement, digital learning, digital creativity , add a commentWe’ve spent much of the past 150 years working to achieve full literacy across the globe. Information has historically been widely disseminated via the written word: so, much knowledge required the ability to read, or have someone who’s judgment you trust relay that information to you. More important still, if you wanted to produce information, you needed to know how to write. Crucially, ‘knowing how to write’ means more than just knowing the letters or spellings of words – it’s knowing how to tell a story, one that people will listen to.
In today’s world, information is spread through different means. Most often, this is video: TV a main source of news in the US. Video is very different from text – there are many more elements, more complexities, more tools needed, and some may argue that it is more powerful in conveying message – but in the end, just like writing, it’s about telling stories. Also just like writing, in order to enter into the conversation and be heard, individuals need to be literate – now, media literate. Henry Jenkins highlights that beyond access to technologies, we all – and particularly the young people – must learn to be media literate. How do you tell an effective story, one that will be watched and listened to, with video? How do you tell your story?
KECT - Los Angeles Community TV - is doing just this, teaching high school students how to tell their stories and represent their neighborhood. Mass media images of Los Angeles tend to focus on either the glitz of Hollywood or the violence in the inner city. Juan Davis explained how KECT set out to show a different LA LA, first by telling stories of a communities and individuals, and next by empowering communities and individuals to tell their own story. The stories we see on KECT portray a true, positive alternative vision of LA communities. What do you do when your voice and the your stories are missing from the media?
Do it yourself.
- Miriam Simun
DIY video: what is it, how do we understand it, and so what? February 9, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : video247, digital opportunities, digital civic engagement, digital learning, digital creativity , 1 comment so farI’m at the DIY video summit at USC, watching some fantastic videos and listening to some great people speak. Today’s panels have discussed state of research, state of art, and the intellectual property dilemma.
The first day centered around two sets of questions. This post deals with the first set:
what is DIY video? why is it important to study? what method do we use? and what do we want to know?
What is DIY video?
DIY video is a mass movement (David Buckingham), it is a culture and a community (Michael Wesch), it is a form of participatory culture (Henry Jenkins), it is widening the public sphere (Yochai Benkler) and it is a product capturing consumer attention (Eric Garland).
Some points of contention:
- Is DIY by definition amateur work? DB comments that much of citizen journalism, particularly the best of it, is done by amateurs looking to become professional. Are we moving to the ‘pro-am?’ Mimi Ito has found otherwise, that amateur vidders are motivated by becoming ‘locally’ famous – recognized by ‘people that matter.’
- Is DIY content intrinsically critical of the establishment? Alexandra Juhasz points out the term ‘DIY’ comes from 1970s and 80s American Punks self-publishing movement, one that was overtly anti-establishment in its message. Does DIY video lose political power if the content is not politica? Or is DIY video already political in that is other than mass media? I would argue for the latter…the issues of triviality (and even stupidity) that Juhasz brings up found on YouTube among the most popular videos..the issue to me seems more about why are these the most popularly viewed videos? That’s largely why they are being created, and that’s where the issue lies.
why is DIY Video important to study? what do we want to know?
DB: To understand if, how and when it is a tool for empowerment. To understand how people learn skills, and what motivates them to learn.
MW: To understand what kind of culture and community is emerging, will emerge and can emerge
EG: People are watching it – it is current and future of entertainment.
HJ: To understand how to create ‘a world where everyday citizens can take media in their own hands and create media, good, bad and indifferent.’
YB: To understand how to create legal, social and technical platforms that facilitate the cultural pushback that is DIY video – to empower users to create and pushback, widening the public sphere.
Thenmozhi Soundarajan: To create media justice, and give disenfranchised a voice.
Sam Gregory: To understand how to use video to motivate political action.
Alexandra Juhasz: To see what we can learn. (Not much, Juhasz claims)
Juan Devis: To learn how to best empower people to tell their story.
What methods do we want to use?
David Buckingham weaves together a theoretical context through which to understand DIY video, bringing thought together from
- media creating as social and cultural practice
- space and role of the amateur
- participatory culture
- creativity in the everyday
- learning and communities of practice
Buckingham further points to the importance of looking at the different subcultures of DIY video (such as skateboarders, video diarists, and citizen journalists) in their own right – and the danger in understanding them as a collective political movement – as politically, they function in different ways. This is really important in keeping the questions of Soundarajan and Gregory, of how we turn DIY video into concrete political action: understanding the DIY video movement to be political as a whole hides the differences in different types and cultures of DIY video that are important for us to acknowledge and be aware of as we start to think about questions like “how do we use video to motivate action?” We need to understand how discrete cultures of DIY video function politically in order to make the most of the possibilities.
Michael Welsch, together with his students, adopted an anthropological approach through the use of participant-observation. Entering the world you YouTube by posting videos themselves, students experience first hand the negotiation of identity and the distance between audience and creator.
Eric Garland reminded us of the importance not only of examining creativity, but also dissemination. The viral nature of dissemination of video via internet changes the power of the medium.
Henry Jenkins traces the history of media, understanding how culture travels and morphs as it moves among different media formats, DIY, mass, and in between.
A few points really stood out to me:
- Can we separate the mode of the message from content? Juhasz points to the loss of ‘anti-establishment’ message in much of YouTube content - or at least in the popular content. But what about the mode? Do content which mimick the mass media have no cultural/political value? Or does DIY video not constitute anti-establishment in itself, in that it is not mass media? Benkler points out the although Wikipedia started as something that was simply mimicking Britannica, through collaboration it evolved into something Britannica could never have imagined.
In thinking about method David Buckingham made a comment that really resonated: the method of study must depend on what you seek to learn. DIY video can be an interesting lens to look at bigger issues, such as communities and social networks, identity and representation, or creativity and agency. It seems important to understand DIY video as it functions in terms of [insert chosen subject of inquiry here (community/agency/identity/public discourse)] rather than in and of itself. This will enable us to see the true power of the medium.
- Miriam Simun
Protest starts on Facebook, ends in the streets February 4, 2008
Posted by digitalnatives in : digital civic engagement , 4commentsHundreds of thousands of Columbians are expected to march today in 185 cities across the globe in protest of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and their use of kidnapping as a weapon. How did such a mass movement get started? Facebook.
The Christian Science Monitor reports,
“We expected the idea to resound with a lot of people but not so much and not so quickly,” says Oscar Morales, who started the Facebook group against the FARC…
Morales started the Facebook Group “UN MILLON DE VOCES CONTRA LAS FARC” on the 4th of January 2008 - it now has 265,833 members. While the low barrier to participation in joining a Facebook group may call into question the power such action truly holds, today’s march proves that in some cases, a click of the mouse may be the first step in becoming truly politically engaged. The protest also depicts just how powerful a tool social networking sites such as Facebook can be in organizing political action.
Also of note is language of choice - as Facebook users go global, how do languages play out? Currently, one must have some knowledge of English to sign up and work the features of the site - limiting the international user base to more educated segment of society. Efforts are underway to make Facebook available in other languages: acknowledging the power of the crowd, Facebook has turned to their users to translate the site into other languages.
- Miriam Simun
