zeppelin444-blog - Tumblr blog

[zeppelin444-blog]

Blog Post #3 - June 8th lecture 10

Today I learned that promoting candidates in the political arena is actually done in the same way that advertising and engagement is garnered through social media for influencers and brands. I learned that this is intentionally done, and used strategically by political candidates and their teams in order to advance their platforms. Candidates have been commercialized and marketed like products, and their campaigns are designed with this strategy so that they can gain voters and support the way brands gain customers. In lecture we learned that the self interest nature of consumers could be applied to voters as well, and this could rationalize the new way that candidates would try to garner voters support. The conservatives were the first to adapt this, as highlighted in lecture, and other parties in the US and UK would adopt this next. “Branding” their campaigns became a strategy to garner donations, votes, and support. 

In our Juicer blog reading, we see that there are detailed steps dedicated to politicians who are trying to grow their campaign, and this is done openly in a manner that is supposed to work like a brand. The writer states that, “your political campaign is like a brand.” Marketing your political campaign online is like marketing a product, and this is done intentionally because it works to garner engagement and create an image for politicians to show their potential voters. 

The idea that political candidates brand themselves like products may sound ridiculous at first, but it actually makes a lot of sense when you consider the times and society we live in. We live in a highly capitalist society, that exists in this age of technology and information. It makes sense that in order to win over support, candidates would use marketing strategies like what's used by brands that sell products. As I learned in today's lecture and readings, while this may arguably not be the most fair way to go about winning elections, it is also not necessarily an easy win either. 

That is, social media is not all good for political candidates, because of the phenomenons of filter bubbles/ideological silos/echo chambers. In this case, social media is selective and you can follow content and content creators, including politicians and their partisan news outlets, based on your existing views and opinion, so other politicians will not be able to easily reach people who already do not favour them. People who already support a candidate will end up being the main ones who are consuming their social media content, while people who may not be supporters or who may be actively against the candidates, will likely not be exposed to their content at all. The idea of filter bubbles or echo chambers means that if you stand on a certain place in the political spectrum, or are in favour of a particular party or candidate, you will end up using your social media platforms to follow them and pages that already feed you content on things you agree with. It's unlikely, for example, that someone who is a Bernie supporter would be following Trump on Twitter. Filter bubbles or echo chambers make it difficult for candidates to get their views across to people who disagree with them or are not partisan supporters. It creates a space on social media that doesn't challenge views and only gives a limited perspective to people and their views. 

This results in political polarization, as Nguyen mentions. The author highlights how people are not likely to shift their favour toward an opposing candidate, and social media reinforce this political polarization. In this case, even with all the branding and image management, it is likely not as useful in gaining outside support, although it has been shown to do this as Nguyen highlights, with things like outside donations to campaigns (as compared to not increasing donations from people who are already supporters). 

In Nguyen’s text, I learned that political candidates are more accessible through online social media spaces without the added costs of reaching such masses. Nguyen also highlights how politicians can manage an image online that improves their appearance to supporters and potential supporters, but this depends on how they go about using their social media platforms, and not every candidate with on online presence will necessarily create “closeness” with citizens. Social media is not an automatic guarantee to win support for candidates, but rather if used right, it can be effective. Candidates using social media might be more useful to voters, since it is a space for them to participate in and analyze politicians and their platforms, as Nguyen highlights. 

[zeppelin444-blog]

Wri 327 Blog Post #2 - June 3rd lecture 9

Today I learned that a New York Times journalist, Bret Stephens, used his professional platform to respond to a random person who upset him by calling him a “bedbug” on Twitter. As our reading by Feinberg highlights, there is a pattern of columnists from esteemed publications using their platforms to respond to what is essentially online hate or even trolling. In some cases, these columnists simply victimized themselves in the face of other written pieces that may have attacked their privilege. It's interesting at the very least, to see how the standards for even professional journalism have changed in this age of social media, where instead of holding steadfast to journalistic standards that prioritize current issues or act as a watchdog against people in power, journalism has become a space for opinion pieces that are personal complaints. This also highlights an ever evolving relationship that traditional journalism has with social media, which has not only brought about a new form of journalism but has reshaped traditional journalism itself. 

As highlighted in today’s lecture, print news (newspapers) have been struggling against new Web 2.0 journalism. The so-called “24-hour news cycle” has redefined the look of modern journalism, and much of it has made traditional print journalism struggle. 

In our reading we see how BuzzFeed has developed into a journalistic organization which has challenged traditional and dominant players as well as influenced online journalism. BuzzFeed along with other less traditional journalist organizations or journalists are able to succeed and be a respectable force in news because of their ability to adapt to the current online social media style of journalism and news consumption. Even though it started off as an entertainment site, Buzzfeed has become a journalistic news outlet who are actually organizing in a way that better reaches people through social media. With its existing large following it has been able to capitalize on technology and social media through this audience. It’s role in advertising has also been notable and it’s gain through social media as a journalistic outlet has been significant. For example as the authors highlight the unique style of BuzzFeed which includes non-traditional storytelling quizzes and easily comprehensive lists means it is now as a staple format for reaching audiences with this style of journalism.

Today I learned that there are unique problems facing Web 2.0 journalism itself, such as funding/revenue for actual reporters dwindling for online outlets (resort to aggregating other works and make editorials; cheapening and compromising honest journalism). Social media is a decentralized tool for engagement, and this means that anyone can have access to share content no matter how big or small their platform is, or whether they are “professionals” or not. 

I learned how social media has become a tool that anyone can really utilize, even for journalism. Anyone can claim to be a journalist nowadays. Today more people are able to participate online (“we are all journalists now and any idiot with an opinion and wifi connection can write about whatever they want”). You can choose to be a journalistic content creator just by running a blog that is easy and accessible. Graduate and undergraduate degrees do exist which, though,  and can help you get a job from larger organizations.

On of the scholars in our lecture mention how journalists are like the first drafts of history and are an indispensable secondary source for scholarly work (hermida or turner). I learned that one of the roles of the press is to act as a watchdog, which is a traditional role that many journalists took on in the past as well (muckraking journalism ex Moore, tarbell, Sinclair). A Watchdog role means journalists speak truth to power and expose injustice and myths that serve the powerful. If journalists don’t bring up such stories, they will get swept under the rug, and these powers will be able to go about what they are doing without being challenged or called out (but this role is not always successful)

Today I also learned some of the methods of journalism. One of them includes pervasive interviewing which means you must get the perspective of the people you’re talking with in order to bring about your story correctly. Journalists have to be able to ask questions and not shy away from this and also determine who are the best people to talk to to give a new story and who make a solid source for information. I also learned that journalists, including digital publishers, need to find a way to make their work profitable so that they could pay writers. Unfortunately, at the time due to this new era of journalism, there isn’t a lot of money to go around. This brings a challenge to digital journalism, and traditional journalists still hold some advantage in this light because they are larger institutions who have money and are able to use resources and and pay journalist for the work they do. However, for digital journalists, while their commentary on news might be useful, they aren’t actually able to go about acquiring news firsthand because they lack the means to pay professionals to do so.

[zeppelin444-blog]

WRI327 Blog Post #1 (May 13 lecture)

Today I learned that capitalism exploits online privacy rights so that they exist to protect the privacy of rich company owners while simultaneously invading the rights of citizens and consumers. It exploits the power dynamic of owner and consumer (including “prosumer” as outlined by Fuchs, in which the consumers of online media content also produce material for that service without getting paid for it by the owners of the service) in favour of the owners of online technology and services. I learned that privatization compromises the the rights of individuals, while in turn claiming that individual “companies” have rights to privacy, and therefore in many cases fail to disclose financial information which can lead to inconsistencies in official records and traces of wealth in a country, such as seen with Austria, wherein the true numbers and statics of wealth disparity may be resultingly skewed. 

Companies who exercise privacy rights for themselves and not their users also engage in exploitation because they use the information that they attain from users (consumers, citizens, prosumers, etc) and make financial gains from that information without giving financial compensation or wages to those same people. That means, for example, if Facebook has access to your photos and online activity, they can create algorithms to bring content and advertisements that may cater more to your interests. While this may not seem inherently immoral, the exploitation comes from the fact that this information is often obtained without consent, and the revenue generated by advertisers from the personal and private information of users is not given back to them. The owners of services exploit the surplus value that is generated through the production of content and the obtainment of personal information and activity that is generated by consumers/users/prosumers, as Fuchs highlights.

In Fuchs article I learned that it would take a socialist perspective of privacy to properly navigate this issue, because that would mean safeguarding people at the bottom of the power hierarchy, while ensuring that secrecy at the top level (among companies and the rich elites) would be avoided. In this way, the power relationship is acknowledged, whereas with a capitalist lens, priority is given to fulfilling the interests of the rich class and corporations, at the direct expense of the working class and people. Capitalism manipulates the idea of “individual” privacy rights, by exploiting individual people on a mass scale, and only protecting the privacy rights of an every monopolizing industry and its owners. 

What I also learned in response to this power imbalance was the phenomenon of counter-powers, who seek to undermine and resist these powers in the form of online activism. For example, grassroots movements and nonprofit movements, hackers, individual activists or even regular citizens, among countless others, work through online services to resist and challenge the exploitation that comes from this capitalist online power structure. In many cases, people will use the services themselves, like Facebook or Twitter, to call out the same owners and platforms for their exploitation and privacy violations. This acts as a counterpower to these oppressive and exploitative owners of these services. However, I learned that while this is important and can many times have great impacts, it is not the same kind of power the owners have, since their power dominates economic, political, and social systems. 

The power dynamics and imbalance is always shifting, but the inherent power always lays with the private owners of these companies and online services. As long as they have sole ownership of these online platforms, they are able to exercise power in many realms of life, whether it be social, politica, culture, economic, etc. As much as the struggle for power persists, the rights of people will always be secondary under capitalism, because that primary goal of capitalism is economic growth, and that is done through the exploitation of working masses, whether they are being paid a wage or not. Privacy rights and safety of the common citizen is not of first importance, especially when it would comprise the revenue of owners of media platforms and services. I have learned that not only are corporations and the rich not interested in respecting privacy rights, but they have an incentive to actively violate those rights and exploit that unseen labour because it generates surplus value. 

There is a history behind this power imbalance, and much of it stems from the Industrial revolution. Today I learned that during the time period of the Industrial Revolution, working class people were not just exploited the way they are today (ie. the ideological exploitation of prosumers who do not earn wages for their labour); they were also physically beaten and abused in order to form them to engage in long hours of labour. I learned that the working class were literally whipped and put into stocked, and forced to work sometimes 12 hours shifts.