Finally our last blog.... anyway...
Todays blog is gonna be about my personal response to convergence of technology and how it effects my communication.
Personally i think that the convergence of technology and communication is a good thing. Todays PDA's and hand phones, primary tools to communication, verbal or computer mediated, is something of a godsend. I am and never will be a person who writes letters via snail mail, mainly because...I dont. But with the access to the internet, camera and other funtions on my phone it has become a very important tool for me to communicate to family in india, nepal,UK and other parts of the globe. Mind you it's not just family that i can instantly contantact, friends too.
Communication via this medium is not only outgoing for me, for i like to read the news, and as for someone who doesnt subscribe to newspapers, reading headlines online via my phone is extreamly convenient! Its a fantastic tool to recieve communication also. ie take example of hearing of the death of MJ. God rest his soul.
However with the convergence of all this media there are a few downers about it. Because we tend to store more and more information in one device these devices become more and more senstitive. Take for example if you lost your laptop!! How much info that would you be able to replace...for me not much...i would lose 3 years worth of uni work and the current work that i'm doing. With that in mind these divices phones or laptops could be high targets of information that people might want to steal. How safe are our gadgets?? What if you lost your phone? How badly would it effect your communication?
Anyway do you think convergence is a good thing? looking at the pros and cons,....its more pro for me.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
video for last post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG-loe_VMws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah-CROQjcGE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gFw8OqCmSc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUWP37a1icw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah-CROQjcGE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gFw8OqCmSc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUWP37a1icw&feature=related
Sunday, June 21, 2009
What's the agenda for centralized governments like Iran and China?
If you have been following the news in China and Iran and have read between the lines of articles that have been written about mass media in those countries you might notice that they are trying to control the message with varied success.
Characteristics of media messages
Interposed channels
– Different media employs different technology
to transmit and/or receive messages
– Requires access to technologies and skills to
encode and decode the message
In China they have come up with this thing called the Greed Dam Project - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8106526.stm - Its a software that filters out information that could be "harmful" to the public.
The reason I bring this up is because today because of new media like the internet, more and more people are now setting the agenda. There are 3 types that are very closely related. 1) Public Agenda, 2) Media Agenda 3) Policy Agenda. In the case of china its policy agenda first with them setting up this new program. in turn the public is making a hoo-ha about it and now the media is setting the agenda forcing the Chinese government to re clarify its regulations on the green dam project.
So, how is this related to Iran? Well over the last week there were elections there and, like Singapore the Government controls the traditional mass media and reports from the media were quite simple saying that it was a landslide victory and everything was ok. However, the public in Iran did not think so and voiced out via the internet and social networking sites such as twitter and facebook. It is quite something to see that in such it was a breaking of the spiral of silence in such that the people spoke out and said that elections were rigged and many people were dying. After that had happened the medias agenda and the world's agenda changed.
-related article- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8110877.stm
Anyway what i'm trying to say is that media's traditional role of agenda setting seems to be deminishing and that the power is shifting towards the individual to set the agenda. I think this is a very powerful thing.very. But do you think such power is a good thing? and possibly one of the reasons for the Green Dam project in China? I personally believe we are in the middle of a revolution of change in how media is changing and such questions that i have posed will only be answered many many years from now.
Characteristics of media messages
Interposed channels
– Different media employs different technology
to transmit and/or receive messages
– Requires access to technologies and skills to
encode and decode the message
In China they have come up with this thing called the Greed Dam Project - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8106526.stm - Its a software that filters out information that could be "harmful" to the public.
The reason I bring this up is because today because of new media like the internet, more and more people are now setting the agenda. There are 3 types that are very closely related. 1) Public Agenda, 2) Media Agenda 3) Policy Agenda. In the case of china its policy agenda first with them setting up this new program. in turn the public is making a hoo-ha about it and now the media is setting the agenda forcing the Chinese government to re clarify its regulations on the green dam project.
So, how is this related to Iran? Well over the last week there were elections there and, like Singapore the Government controls the traditional mass media and reports from the media were quite simple saying that it was a landslide victory and everything was ok. However, the public in Iran did not think so and voiced out via the internet and social networking sites such as twitter and facebook. It is quite something to see that in such it was a breaking of the spiral of silence in such that the people spoke out and said that elections were rigged and many people were dying. After that had happened the medias agenda and the world's agenda changed.
-related article- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8110877.stm
Anyway what i'm trying to say is that media's traditional role of agenda setting seems to be deminishing and that the power is shifting towards the individual to set the agenda. I think this is a very powerful thing.very. But do you think such power is a good thing? and possibly one of the reasons for the Green Dam project in China? I personally believe we are in the middle of a revolution of change in how media is changing and such questions that i have posed will only be answered many many years from now.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
whose collectivist and who's individualist?
If we have been following the world news I'm sure that you've noticed whats been happening with North Korea and how its especially been irritating the USA.
Its understandable that the USA is a highly individualist type of society and north Korea being a collectivist society.
Now the definition of what it means to be individualist and collectivist.
Characteristics of a collectivist society:
– High interdependence
– Interpersonal sensitivity
– Conformity
– Readiness to be influenced by others
– Mutual sympathy
– Self sacrifice for ingroup members
– External control
– One or two ingroups
Individualist cultures
– Social behaviour is largely determined by personal goals, attitudes and values of collectivities
– People create their own ingroups, rather than tradition
– Many ingroups; low dependency
– Only specific aspects of a person’s life is influenced by ingroups
Ok so now you know this think about the bigger picture of what is going on between north Korea and the USA.
Dont you think its a reversal of roles in such that north Korea is acting very individualistic by not caring what the US or the world thinks. There's definitely no conformity to the world in their actions.
Then you have the US playing a collectivist type role saying, follow the rules be like the rest of us.
Its a bit of a mind )@#$ but i hope you understand where I'm coming from but what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is miss communication in the approach that both parties are attempting. Korea is taking the direct approach, where as America is leading the collectivistic approach.
To catch up on current affairs on this situation here is the link that sparked my writing in this blog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8098993.stm
Do you think i'm correct to assume what i have interpreted?
Its understandable that the USA is a highly individualist type of society and north Korea being a collectivist society.
Now the definition of what it means to be individualist and collectivist.
Characteristics of a collectivist society:
– High interdependence
– Interpersonal sensitivity
– Conformity
– Readiness to be influenced by others
– Mutual sympathy
– Self sacrifice for ingroup members
– External control
– One or two ingroups
Individualist cultures
– Social behaviour is largely determined by personal goals, attitudes and values of collectivities
– People create their own ingroups, rather than tradition
– Many ingroups; low dependency
– Only specific aspects of a person’s life is influenced by ingroups
Ok so now you know this think about the bigger picture of what is going on between north Korea and the USA.
Dont you think its a reversal of roles in such that north Korea is acting very individualistic by not caring what the US or the world thinks. There's definitely no conformity to the world in their actions.
Then you have the US playing a collectivist type role saying, follow the rules be like the rest of us.
Its a bit of a mind )@#$ but i hope you understand where I'm coming from but what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is miss communication in the approach that both parties are attempting. Korea is taking the direct approach, where as America is leading the collectivistic approach.
To catch up on current affairs on this situation here is the link that sparked my writing in this blog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8098993.stm
Do you think i'm correct to assume what i have interpreted?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Group communication
Upon reflecting group communication and things that are going on in the world. the article about voter apathy caught my attention.
http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/02/voter-apathy-in-normandy/
Ok we all know a group consists of 3 or more people but it you think abstractly a nation of people is also considered a group(?)
The article basically states that 1/4 of a small group of people voted European Parliamentary Elections. This is also not uncommon in Singapore by the way.....("Bowling Online, Not Alone: Online Social Capital and Political Participation in Singapore" journal of computer mediated communication)
Anyway it brings up the issue of if one doesn't vote can one complain about a groups leader? Ie take for example pg 184 of our text book with the header of Taking on task and maintenance Roles. Could one say that governments that have voter apathy are focusing to much on maintenance and less on social dimension?
I believe that one should vote if it is compulsory or not. Then at least you have justifications to encourage or oppose your leaders actions. Yes groups can be dynamic and can solve but also create many problems. The key i believe is to make a stance on who you choose your leader to be.
http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/02/voter-apathy-in-normandy/
Ok we all know a group consists of 3 or more people but it you think abstractly a nation of people is also considered a group(?)
The article basically states that 1/4 of a small group of people voted European Parliamentary Elections. This is also not uncommon in Singapore by the way.....("Bowling Online, Not Alone: Online Social Capital and Political Participation in Singapore" journal of computer mediated communication)
Anyway it brings up the issue of if one doesn't vote can one complain about a groups leader? Ie take for example pg 184 of our text book with the header of Taking on task and maintenance Roles. Could one say that governments that have voter apathy are focusing to much on maintenance and less on social dimension?
I believe that one should vote if it is compulsory or not. Then at least you have justifications to encourage or oppose your leaders actions. Yes groups can be dynamic and can solve but also create many problems. The key i believe is to make a stance on who you choose your leader to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
