Response to Articles Concerning Blogs and Wikis

Rosen, Nicholas, and Dunlop all add interesting insight into the world of blogging. Rosen comments on how we are an audience and should remain in the position to see and hear, lacking any interaction at all. He focuses in on stories wherein blogging is concerned as journalism without the media. This is an interesting way to look at the situation - as journalism and the media being separate entities that only traditionally have been a couple. Another of the stories discusses "team coverage" as having a new definition. We have been programmed to think that the team covering any news story is an outside team of reporters, cameramen, and people that only exist on a specific channel, but now we can be a part of that team and cover stories together, reaching places that otherwise may go unnoticed. Finally, his article made use of the quote, "Bloggers do views, not news." I, however, quite disagree here. Why does news have to involve a sense of formality to be credible? It's not like network or cable news channels don't incorporate a level of bias. During the past San Diego fires, I heavily relied on the Union Tribune's blog (fireblog.blogspot.com) to give me the most up to date information, albeit it came form different sources and "uncredible" writers. Nicholas goes on to write that there are over 12 million bloggers in the US - how then are all of those 12 million people to be considered uncredible. There have to be some reliable and highly intelligent sources in that mix. Also, he goes on to discuss citizen journalists as opposed to the average blogger, but I'm left to wonder if this is anything more than just a title, allowing these citizen journalists to maintain somewhat of an elite status. Dunlop then carries on the conversation discussing blogs as a rebirth of participatory democracy. He, like the others, mentions that few bloggers strive for objectivity - a strength and weakness at the same time. Again, I wonder who says it has to be formal to be credible and a true, standing argument.

The discussions about wikis I found a bit less captivating, probably because while I use a wiki in class, I am much more involved in blogs because it occurs more often and on a more participatory fashion. There few a few comments and notes that I found interesting, though again often disagreed with. Terdiman mentions how news can be one of the most effective uses of wikis. I see how that could be true, but I think the worlds we have discussed like educational and professional presentations and collaborations are much more easily facilitated with tools such as wikis, or as he calls them multipurpose interactive phenomena. Finally, he mentions how wikis are, "particularly significant in the age of increasing distrust of mainstream media." I completely agree, yet I wonder why this doesn't make blogging, then, more significant. Further, in Pink's discussion on the topic, he speaks of contributors to sites like Wikipedia as addicts - WHAT?! I don't even find this point valid enough to argue, so I'll just leave it as that.

Bordo: Beauty Rediscovers the Male Body

Loved it, loved it, loved it. I thought this article was fantastic and I really enjoyed Bordo's commentary. It was funny, poignant, and very honest. I loved the contrasts between male and female advertised sexuality. I really have nothing to criticize or question about Bordo's claims, or the tactics she used to get there. I really enjoyed her discussion of the male body - it was very honest and arousing and quite thought provoking. It's also nice to see a new medium, such as male consumer-driven sexuality and appearance, being explored and questioned. Great article.

Fleming: Can Pictures be Arguments?

Throughout Fleming's ramblings of research, I found myself quickly overwhelmed and annoyed by his overanalysis of the term argument and what that term entails. Much as pictures are ambiguous, as discussed in his paper, so too I think are arguments. He discusses the difference between influence and argument, and concludes that picture cannot, independent of language, be an argument. Despite his heavy research, I still disagree. There are very powerful, convincing, and life-changing images that have consumed American culture and affected the way we think as a culture. Why does their have to be a rigid distinction, then, between argument and influence? I believe that images come with a certain amount of argument which the viewer then internalizes and analyzes, building its own set of powerful qualities which then have the ability to influence our opinions and behaviors.

Eisenstein: Defying the Initial Shift

To be honest, a lot of what Eisenstein speaks of is so wordy and dated that I find myself a bit overcome and disconnected from the text. There were a few moments that stuck out to me as very interesting and ground-breaking. For instance, the discussion of the rivalries in printing is pretty entertaining. I don't know if it's because I assume that in its early stages, printing would be highly limited and thereby not competitive, yet clearly my assumptions were incorrect. Also, the idea that for so long handwork and presswork were indistinguishable despite innovations in the field show a couple of things. One, that quality and preservation were highly valued and, two, that innovations don't always mean celebrating change. Finally, the sentiment of a communication revolution was discussed, and this section made its strongest points for me because it seems the most easily understood. Of course these big changes and developments in the field are going to amount to a revolution, so people might as well embrace the idea and run with it.