Friday 28 September 2012

Do the contemporary Public Spheres of Twitter and Blogs truly provide the complete freedom of expression?


The idea of Public Sphere was first put by forward by Habermas (1962, p7).  Habermas put forward the idea of Public Spheres as people getting together in a public place to form a common understanding of an opinion; the common understanding sometimes leading to certain actions by the state.

I remember from my childhood when the people of my village (in Saudi Arabia) will get together to discuss matters that were important at the time; for example issues related to the frequent electricity outages. The village elders will chair the meet and the people attending will make a collaborative decision on what actions to take; e.g. whether to write a letter to the local electricity providers or to approach the local politicians. I can still remember that in many cases, the meet will be very effective in defining a plan of action and then executing it. Most of the times, there were positive results.



Figure 1: Public Sphere (http://carlcassegard.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/fraser-and-transnational-public-Spheres.html, 28 September 2012)

The original idea of Public Spheres is probably not relevant any more with the advent of internet technologies such as Twitter Sphere and Blog Sphere (Ferree et al. 2002, p.299). The internet allows people to publish their opinions, provide opinions in response to other people’s opinions and join virtual groups that support a particular opinion (notice my extensive use of word opinion, I believe that everything posted by common individuals on the web space is nothing more than individual opinion). For example, a user may write a tweet post that can potentially be read and subscribed to by thousands of users within minutes.

I do not agree that idea of Public Spheres has been completely replaced by the Internet Spheres; and I seriously doubt whether the Public Spheres will ever be completely replaced by the Internet Spheres. One of the things that come to mind is; do the contemporary Spheres such as Twitter and blogs truly provide the complete freedom of expression? Have a read of the following news item


I won’t go into the specifics of the news item. The point is that someone was sued over what they said on twitter. Does it mean twitter doesn’t allow for freedom of expression and isn’t a truly contemporary Public Sphere? I visit a number of forums and groups online every day. There are numerous instances where people are publically criticised over their views, opinions and thoughts. I think it’s not complete freedom of expression if one is constantly facing the fear of public criticism. I have even seen instances where people with anonymous identity have wrongly criticised other people posting that are actually using their own identity. I personally find that I am not completely honest (or to put it more correctly, I am not bluntly honest) in my opinions on the public forums because of the exact same reason; fear of wrongful and non productive criticism.

In comparison to the Twitter Sphere, the Blog Sphere and the numerous other Internet Spheres, I can imagine that people will be very upfront and forthcoming about their opinions in a Public Sphere. The reason would be that the discussion will be guided by some select individuals who are respected for their intellect and position in their society. If the meeting was to go off the track; the person chairing or guiding the discussion will take appropriate actions to park the off the track discussions and ensure the meeting is focussed on the issue being discussed. One can argue that this type of moderation is against the freedom of expression. However, I think in the context of a Public Sphere, it is critical for the meeting to be effective if a meaningful conclusion is to be reached. I can relate this back to my example of the meetings at my village. The intellectual and experienced village elders were responsible for ensuring that everyone had the right to express their opinion without having to worry about non-constructive criticism.

In addition to the issues discussed above, there is the even greater issue of Internet Censorship. The Chinese government has blocked most of the major social networking websites in the country in the name of Internet security (Naubman, 1998, p258-260). In a Public Sphere, a restriction such as this would have been much harder to implement for the Chinese government; as this restriction in a physical sense (since Public Spheres were physical meets) would be considered violating of very fundamental human rights. In comparison, the freedom of expression on the Internet is still a fair way away from being considered fundamental human rights. This is another reason I think the modern Internet Spheres aren’t a true replacement of the traditional Public Spheres.



Figure 2: The Great Firewall of China (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/16/china-tightens-grip-on-vpn-access-amid-pro-democracy-protests-g/)

Another angle of discussion is the freedom of expression in Public Spheres. There are numerous examples where the people are deprived of their freedom of expression in Public Spheres. Vietnam is a prime example where there are significant restrictions on people getting together, forming political groups or expressing their opinions to the press. Therefore, the Internet Spheres and Public Spheres both suffer the unethical barriers to people being able to express their opinions freely.

In spite of the issues discussed above, I think the Internet in general (including Twitter Sphere and Blog Sphere) is a great extension to the concept of Public Sphere; a medium that knows no boundaries. The freedom of expression is an issue that causes problems for both Public Sphere and the Internet Spheres such as Twitter Sphere and Blog Sphere. The core purpose of the Public Sphere and the Internet Spheres (in this context) is to allow people to express their opinions freely and build a general consensus. To overcome the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet Spheres, there are a few different things that can be done:

1. Have specialised forums that facilitate discussion in an adequately moderated environment so that members of the forum feel the freedom of expression to contribute; without having to worry about non-constructive criticism;

2. International laws and regulations to protect people’s freedom of expression in the states that restrict the freedom of expression of people unethically;

3. The intellectuals in the subject areas of discussions taking the lead and directing the discussion.


      These solutions aren’t at all easy to achieve given the complexities of the Internet including having no boundaries, the Internet crossing the legal jurisdictions and the sheer volume of members and their diversity. I think it can only be achieved via educating people to respect each other’s opinions and promoting the use of appropriate technical tools. In addition, the states that are censoring the Internet need to be flexible and logical in their approach. For example, China’s great firewall is not a solution to the problems they are trying to address.  It is breach of people’s freedom of expression to just blanket block the Internet sites such as Twitter, Google, YouTube and other mediums for people to share information and express their opinions.

References:        

Habermas, J. (1962/1995). The structural transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Mit Press.

Marx Ferree, M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the Public Sphere in modern democracies. Theory and society, 31(3), 289–324. (p. 299).

Schwarz, K (2012). Kelly Sued over Tweet. Online on 21 August 2012 at http://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/161508/kelly-sued-over-tweet/
Taubman, G. (1998). A not-so world wide web: the Internet, China, and the challenges to non- democratic rule. Political Communication. 15, p255–272

Friday 31 August 2012

Future of nations, the children – influenced by Celebrity Culture


The article “Teenagers most influenced by celebrities” (The telegraph, 2009) surveyed 18000 students in the UK and concluded that the children are most influenced by celebrities; and that the students have no sense of local community or culture. I see this on the train every day. While travelling to and from the university; I travel with a lot of students travelling to or from the school. I cannot help but overhear most of them talking about footy players, cricket players, Hollywood stars and Paris Hilton. I can very much tell the influence of celebrities when I see boys struggling to be the alpha male of the group and twelve year old girls with so much make-up as if they were going to a prom party in the 80s. In fact, I should look in my own den first; my 3 year daughter son tells me “Hanna Montana is the best girl in the world”.

Marshall (2010) says that we are moving into a Specular Economy where we are collectively becoming more conscious of how we represent ourselves. The children are obviously more prone to the influence as they get more and more exposure to the celebrity culture via the TV, internet, social media and the celebrity friends.

According to the Daily Mail (15 April 2009), “Unruly pupils are copying the worst behaviour they see from footballers and celebrities on television, the Government's discipline tsar said today”.



References

Daily Mail Report, 2009, 'Celebrity culture is fuelling violence and sex among children, says school tsar', Mail Online, 15 April, first edition, viewed 1 September 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169946/Celebrity-culture-fuelling-violence-sex-children-says-schools-tsar.html

Marshall, D P, 2010, "The Specular Economy: Celebrity, two-way mirrors and the personalization of renown", Society. Vol. 50, September/October, 2010

Saturday 25 August 2012

Effectiveness of narrowcasting in the production of diasporic media


The cultures are influenced by the mass media. After TV, Internet is a prime example of how much the cultures are influenced by mass media.

Narrowcasting refers to broadcasting to a very narrow range of audience (Legendre et al, 2008, p1).  The authors go on to provide some examples of how narrowcasting can be achieved. Some examples include requiring the users to register with cable TV, mailing lists and electronic forums. YouTube channels to me are a perfect example of narrowcasting.

I am from Saudi Arabia and I came to Australia about 3 years ago. I was coming to a new country and a new culture; something that I had experienced never before. I used Internet as the primary form of research to find out what to expect, how to behave, how to speak, what I will be eating and how I can make friends. I watch videos specifically targeted towards people who are arriving in Australia on YouTube. I read blogs. I read news articles. I read university’s guide to settling in Australia. All of these sources from the Internet and narrowcasted towards people looking to settle in Australia.

Can we see the connection between me, narrowcasting and diasporic media yet? The specific material I used to learn about Australian culture embedded certain Australian customs and values in my core beliefs. In that way, the diasporic media helped promote the Australian values and the customs to me before I had arrived. I did not try to change the Australian Culture; I could settle into the existing Australian culture.


Department of Immigration and Citizenship, People our Business http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6jA_nQ2qGM&feature=relmfu

References:
Lengender, F, May, M, Lenders, V and Karlsson (2008). Narrowcasting: An Empirical Performance Evaluation Study. Read online on 26 August 2012 at http://www.lenders.ch/publications/conferences/chants08.pdf

Department of Immigration and Citizenship, People our Business http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6jA_nQ2qGM&feature=relmfu

Tuesday 21 August 2012

Twittersphere, Blogsphere: Contemporary Public Sphere?


The idea of public sphere comes from the publication The Structural Transformation of the public sphere by Habermas (1962, p7).  Habermas put forward the idea of public spheres as people getting together in a public place to form a common understanding of an opinion; the common understanding sometimes leading to certain actions by the state.

The original idea of public spheres is probably not relevant any more with the advent of internet technologies such as Twittersphere and Blogsphere (Ferree et al. 2002, p.299). The internet allows people to publish their opinions, provide opinions in response to people’s opinions and join virtual groups that support a particular opinion (notice my extensive use of word opinion, I have also believed that everything posted by common individuals on the web space is nothing more than opinion). For example, a user may write a tweet post that can potentially be read and subscribed to by millions on users within minutes.

The question however is, are the contemporary spheres of twitter and blogs truly provide the complete freedom of expression? Have a read of the following news item

I won’t go into the specifics of the news item. The point is that someone was sued over what they said on twitter. Does it mean twitter doesn’t allow for freedom of expression and isn’t a truly contemporary public sphere?

I think internet in general (including twittersphere and blogsphere) is a great replacement of the concept of public sphere; a medium that knows no boundaries. However, we do have to be considerate of others in this space.
 



References:

Habermas, J. (1962/1995). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Mit Press.

Marx Ferree, M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and society, 31(3), 289–324. (p. 299).

Schwarz, K (2012). Kelly Sued over Tweet. Online on 21 August 2012 at http://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/161508/kelly-sued-over-tweet/

Monday 13 August 2012

Mateship – How I fell in love with Australia!


The concept of Mateship is the Australian cultural idiom that embodies equality, loyalty and friendship (Caroll, 1982). I have read so many things about complex cultures and the associated beliefs, values and ideologies. I have found these overwhelmingly difficult at times to understand why the cultures need to be so complex.

I then came to Australia to study. I feel in love with the easy going nature of the people, the friendly nature and the acceptance that everyone receives. The celebrations, the problems, the sorry, the thank you; it’s all manageable with the ‘No Worries Mate’. No one is overly serious. I absolutely love it.



The big question to me is how the Australian culture of mateship is going to evolve with the increasing migration levels and people arriving in Australia from different parts of the culture, different backgrounds and different beliefs. I am not necessarily implying that the Australian cultural will be impacted in a negative way. I only hope that people coming into Australia can realise the importance and the power of simplicity that the mateship culture is.

Hats off to the simplicity and easy going attribute of the Australian culture.

References
Carroll, John (1982). Intruders In The Bush: The Australian Quest For Identity (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 0-19-553374-7.

Between a Hard Rock and a Place. Cam Harris Blog. Online on 13 August 2012 at http://camharris.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mate.jpg

Sunday 5 August 2012

Trademark Laws


A trademark is defined as a right that is granted to give an organization exclusive right to commercially use, license or sell it for goods and services that it is registered under (IP Australia).

The companies are treating the protection of their trademarks with a lot of seriousness. The 240 Million dollar lawsuit by the Chinese company Proview Technology against Apple Inc in 2007 is an example of how serious the violation of trademark rights can be.
The violation of trademarks may be performed by organizations on purpose or in innocence. I think the primary results for this violation may include lack of education and not being aware of serious consequences. The organizations need to be aware of the laws relating to Trademark. For example, in Australia, the Intellectual Property Australia website provides comprehensive information and help for organizations to understand their both obligations and rights about fair use of trademark.

I was researching for this blog and found these cartoon images that say a lot about different people’s and organization’s understanding of trademarks and what they mean. This tells me that there’s significant lack of education about Trademarks, especially when it comes to common people. After all, it is the common people that go on to become the employees of companies and end up making decisions on protecting and breaching the trademark rights; well not Paris Hilton.

 



References

Trade Marks. IP Australia, Government of Australia. Viewed online at 5 August on http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/trade-marks/

Apple in lawsuit over iPad trademark infringement, 7 February 2012. Viewed online at 5 August on http://www.china.org.cn/business/2012-02/07/content_24570151.htm

Sunday 29 July 2012

Global Media Empires – Good thing or bad thing?


Rupert Murdoch is one name that popped in my head as soon as I heard these words “Global Media Empires”. His empire includes TV channels, newspapers, radio channels, movie production houses and magazines. The one man owns almost one fifth of the world’s media capability. Rupert Murdoch and his business operations have been under scrutiny for unethical and at times, illegal operations (The Guardian, 14/7/2011).

Vardarajan (2012) says that Rubert’s goal was always to demolish the print dailies and have an unquestioned media empire where he could do what he liked and published what he wanted to. This raises concerns about what the media giants are potentially capable of, both good and bad. When I am reading a news story, I couldn’t potentially know how much is being hidden from me, what’s been ill-communicated and whether all stories are being brought to me.

Another thing I hate is how Paris Hilton or Lady Gaga are on a full page of newspaper, and news about world economy is hidden in a small corner. The media empires probably need to take a deep breath and realise what great role they can play in globalisation if they had their mind straight.

To conclude, in my opinion large media empires are probably a good thing. They are under continuously scrutiny from governments and other social organizations; therefore their unethical behaviour would be restricted to a great extent. They could however be better if they operated with a better moral and ethic.

References

Varadarajan, Tunku (2012). "Nationalization and Necrophilia. Till death do us part. Chronicle of a Death". Online at

Ed Pilkington in New York, Andrew Gumbel and agencies (14/07/2011). "FBI to investigate News Corporation over 9/11 hacking allegations". The Guardian (London). Online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/14/fbi-news-corp-hacking-claims?INTCMP=SRCH