Journalism's Place in the 21st Century.

Being a student of journalism and learning about all the future opportunities and stories to cover through this course, I have decided to write (err, type) what I believe my job will entail as we move into the future.

My future job? Virtually non-existent. At least that is how it has been explained to me. The internet is playing a major role in this, especially with the dying off of old forms of print, and the rise of internet based news coverage. My future may seem bleak right now, but I believe more opportunities are in fact going to open because of the internet, even if that means less of a traditional role in journalism.

Online news has been said to be the future of journalism. This is most likely because it already is, and that companies are trying to capitalize on being able to inform people 24/7 on thousands of topics.

Google allows me to search for results on a specific news event and come up with hundreds or thousands of results. These results are not only stories, but videos, Twitter feeds, blogs, pictures, and Facebook pages. My journalism classes have taught me that I must master all of these forms in order to stay competitive in the job market, and they even encourage me to become familiar with them now. I have a Twitter now, a Facebook profile, and now a blog. These are just tiny stones in the long road of mastering these forms of digital media, but they are something that I must continue to work on. My Twitter is still somewhat of a ghost town, mostly because I sometimes forget that I actually have an account, and the majority of the other Twitter accounts that I follow are professional news agencies like the NYT, BBC, and Al-Jazeera among others.

Becoming digitally aware in the 21st century is extremely important. I use this term "digitally aware" because not only must someone learn to use it, but learn to use it to its full potential. Because information can be so easily searched, thanks to Google, journalists must learn to build a following, and make sure their information is within the first page of a Google search result. How can you do this? Link to everything. To become an online journalism star your information must be linked to many pages in order for its popularity to increase. Being linked to large news organizations is one major step, but another one is having your information linked to other forms of media. Having your Twitter page linked to your Facebook increases its search ability, and having your Facebook linked to your blog increases your blog presence on the Web.

These are just a couple of things my professors and instructors have been teaching me about becoming a journalist. At first I was ignorant at the fact that this was vital to our future, and once I became more and more aware, I began to open up and break into the world of Twitter (which will hopefully be more active soon) and continue on blogging even after this class is over.

Censorship

Censorship was a one of the topics Jackson covered in his presentation, and as a budding journalist, it is a topic that will impact my life further down the road when my careers begins.

Jackson described the use of  gag order to limit what can be published by a third party source, and jeopardize other works by the same person. After some research, the concept of a gag order was still somewhat foreign to me, so I asked one of my journalism professors regarding this legal practice towards media outlets.

My professor, who works for the CBC, told me that it happens more often than one would think, and it impacts many of the stories they want to cover, such as court cases. There was one example that she gave me that impacted the CBC quite often. It was gag-orders issued by the government over reporting over certain topics that were currently being debated by several political leaders. Details were not allowed to be made public regarding many issues (most legal problems) and it generally wasn't until after they had been solved that they were allowed to be reported on.

The idea of a gag order being issued on an online blog or news organization seems impossible to enforce. Legal action is generally not taken until someone that the issue effects has seen it and called on their lawyers to issue the order. By that time, if the topic is controversial enough, would have spread to other online sources and gone viral. Now the idea of the gag order seems like a symbolic gesture rather than a practical one; like suing individuals over illegal downloads.

What I took from Jackson's presentation was that gag orders roles are not to stop an idea from spreading, but rather a way of scaring other third party websites (blogs) from allowing information to be published in the first place. In this sense, gag orders do not silence an individual, but rather the internet as a whole.

The last statement is impossible as we all know, but it shows the intent of organizations trying to stop information from being published in the first place, and for blogs to self censor in fear of being sued over content they've allowed to be published.

Where in countries like Cuba and North Korea where the internet is censored as a whole, in the Western world, the internet is censored in segments (political and social) and the idea of private censorship make a much longer lasting effect because we are publishing information in a country that has freedom of speech, and yet we allow for things to so easily be censored.

Cyber Culture: My experiences with online gaming

My experiences with cyber cultures come from firsthand experience. When I younger (12 or so) I began playing games on PC. It started out as something I only did because my cousin also played, but once he started focusing elsewhere, my immersion into the world of online gaming began. It started out as playing with the same group of gamers repeatedly, but it evolved into what gamers call a “Clan”. Clans are groups of people who play together, usually in some form of competitive manner. 

I developed a rapport with my fellow gamers, and people began to even recognize my gaming tag ‘FuriousGeorge’. My game of choice? Call of duty. Playing in a clan allowed me to join leagues with my online friends to play for money and bragging rights. I became immersed with my social identity online, even though no one in my daily interactions knew exactly how good I was at playing a shooting game against people from around the world. 

(I`ve tried to find information about myself under my pseudonym, but to little avail).

I initially started a clan with people from Canada; none of which I knew, and yet we were all connected by the fact that we were representing Canada in the world of Competitive gaming. Being young at the time made me fickle though. I left this group after I had become well known in my community of competitive gamers, which allowed me to join with any clan that I believed would foster my abilities. 

Unlike what most people’s views are towards gamers, I was doing quite well in school, and I was also well liked by my classmates. Even though I played against some of the best gamers in the world, no one knew why I did it. It’s hard to explain why, and even harder to explain why I kept going back to online gaming after I told myself that I should stop playing, mostly due to the falling apart of several clans I had started with a core group of friends. 

I stopped playing competitively for several years, but went back to it during the summer of 2009. For some reason I felt obliged to go out and buy Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, and to begin playing again. Within a month of playing again, a clan invited me to join them, and unlike my previous year’s experiences with clans, this one was very well run. I was again fully immersed in the world of gaming, and actually had some of my teammates come to Toronto so we could play in a competition here. The event left a sour taste in my mouth, mostly due to my thoughts on how seriously people taking competitive gaming. My teammates were much like me, and also become alienated by the community that was there. After the event we all shook hands and said “never again”. I formally left the clan, and on a good note unlike many times before. 

My experiences in this culture did not alienate me from my real life interactions, and in fact made me feel somewhat more confident. It’s hard to explain the world exactly, and I am left mostly with an anecdotal examination with little depth, but it’s hard to explain to someone who doesn’t know exactly what the goings-on with competitive gaming. All the people I met online were not the typical geekish gamers. Most of them were like every other person I met in real life, but just liked to play games for money alongside their daily interactions.

This has been my interactions with cyber culture, something that I think very little of now. I do not expect to ever play competitively again, and unlike many professional sports, I could retire when I was 18.

Gaming and Violence

After a class discussion today I have decided that addressing the idea of violence among youth being the result of playing video games.

The controversy has existed for as long as violent video games have existed. Why do games that have mature themes get the blame for a "violent" culture? Was it Doom that made the columbine massacre possible? Was it an addiction to EverQuest that made 21 year old Shawn Woolley commit suicide? Video games have been pointed at as the creators of violent personalities, but I believe that it is simple one outlet that someone with a violent mind will use to get out anger and frustration.

It is impossible to directly relate a persons obsession with video games; more specifically violent games, with violent behaviour. Almost all calls for the banning of a specific video game, or a way in which to regulate video games with mature themes have come after the result of a violent incident. After the Columbine massacre, Doom was to blame. After the Virginia Tech shooting Counter Strike was to blame, and the shooting of two officers by David Moore, who was apparently obsessed with Grand Theft Auto.

Individuals with violent tendencies have always found outlets for their anger. Whether it was through bullying, fighting, killing animals, and abusing spouses/children/elderly. It hasn't been until the release of First Person Shooters (FPS) that people have begun to take notice at how individuals can be easily drawn into playing a violent game (whether they have violent tendencies or not) and finally having a single source for all blame to be placed. A violent video game will not make someone with no violent background/psychological problems pick up a gun and murder someone.

There was a recent case where the psychologist, Carole Lieberman, said that the Newly released game BulletStorm could lead to cases of Rape because of its suggestive and mature themes. She believed that because the game referenced acts of sex when referring to killing single or multiple targets, such as saying "Gang Bang, Gag Reflex and Mile High Club", that it may entice young individuals to commit acts of sexual violence. Since her article was published on Fox News' website, it has been debunked by almost every video gaming website, and even Lieberman's credentials have been called into question.

Video games have become the scape goat for parents when something terrible befalls a community. Pointing the finger at an industry that has complied with almost every request when it comes to marking items in accordance to the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board). Things such as playing cowboys and indians, telling scary stories, and watching violent movies have rarely been called into question as much as video games have, and that is because each of these things have become imbedded within out society as something young people do, and something that is readily accepted as a social norm.

Digital Wisdom

Digital Wisdom means a lot to me, because I am able to research topics, opinions and data to further my knowledge about a specific topic. Wikipedia alone has enhanced my knowledge greatly, because it is easy to use, has millions of topics (maybe billions now) and information can be edited for further accuracy.

Enhancing my human wisdom into something that encompasses digital means is something the human race as a whole is currently undertaking. Being able to look ahead effectively and determine problems in the future is the goal of any user and creator of internet sites and technological equipment.

Digital distraction is a negative proponent of digital wisdom, and I think the two go hand in hand. I have become much more curious about various topics since I have started using the internet, such as my browser history would describe. Websites such as Reddit; a new aggregator, Wikipedia; a free online encyclopedia, and various forums about many differing topics. All of these sites have added to my ability to change perspectives, search out accurate information, and separate my emotions from my search for more information.

Digital Distraction on the other hand does play a large part in my life. Even now that I am writing this blog, I am listening to music, reading articles online, and I was even watching a short Youtube video. I have put this assignment off until the last moment because I kept telling myself: "It's just a blog, something you can write in 10 minutes." Being able to complete information at a increased speed is both a blessing and a curse. I am able to write the actual blog in a shorter times span, which can help me focus on what the article my Marc Prensky; I am also learning that procrastination didn't in fact hurt my grade this time. With a research essay I have to actually go to a library and find information, but with this blog I am able to put it off to the last second because it is so easy to access.

Digital Wisdom is a double edged sword, with one side allowing us to multitask at an ever increasing rate (even if the results are poorer than focusing on a single task), but we are also procrastinating as if any assignment will only take a matter of moments to complete and hand in. No body is using digital wisdom to its potential because as of now it is only a distraction. Programs like Microsoft word are only a small portion of this computer, and its main usage is for Youtube, Wikipedia browsing, and internet surfing.

Being distracted is the direct result of not understanding what Digital Wisdom can entail. The ability to learn about various topics at the touch of a button, and learn other peoples perspectives from around the world. Being able to harness the full potential of Digital Wisdom can help people shake the problems with our current use of logic and knowledge that Prensky listed on page 3.

I myself use digital wisdom to a small portion of its potential, because up until I was able to search Wikipedia for topics that I knew nothing about, I would simply forget them let them loose a prominent portion of interest in my brain. There is nothing wrong with digital distraction, but unless you know how distracted you actually are, it is in fact a very serious problem for people today.

,

The Internet and Privacy

The term privacy means almost nothing to digital natives. Sherry Turkle states that "Today's college students are habituated to a world of online blogging, instant messaging, and Web browsing that leaves electronic traces". Digital natives have very little knowledge when it comes to the right of privacy stipulated by many governments.

Facebook not only sells personal information to private organizations, but also owns the rights to any images posted within its site. Why are digital natives continue to willingly give out personal information to a website that sells that information? The notion of privacy when it comes to being a protected right in a democracy is of very little concern when it comes to students.

One can find almost everything there is to know about themselves online. After a quick search of my name, I came up with my Facebook, a forum I used to post in, and one of my older blogs. The last two items I have not used in several years, and yet they appear near the top of my search.

Facebook has been selling personal information about its users to marketing firms, that create ads that are of interest to you. After searching for a company of Facebook, I then found myself staring at an ad for that company. Facebook has sold my search results, much like Google, to a marketing firm to process my information.

It's a scary thought that all my information that has been posted, not only on my wall, but others have found its way back to me.  Based on things that I have become a fan of, ads now pop up based on key search words. Even as I type this an ad has come up pushing me to move to Philadelphia. This is most likely due to become a fan of the TV show: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.


Is the ability to sell our private information all in the details? Did we all agree to the website being allowed to sell our information? Maybe somewhere when I first signed up it said so, but I certainly did not agree to allow Google to do the same after using its search engine. Perhaps selling our information is something that these companies expect us just to give up, because they see it as benefiting us.


I'm going to end this blog with a quote from an episode of Saturday Night Live, where Bill Hader is depicting Julian Assange. His representation of Assange is not only entertaining, but also gets at the root of the issue of personal/private information.

“What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I’m a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.”
— Julian Assange (Bill Hader) on SNL