A re-occuring scene in my house hold consists of my mother walking into the living room seeing me staring at my phone screen, with Netflix playing on the television and my laptop open on the floor in front of me and I can already predict that she’s going to say “Are you even watching this?”. We have extremely fast internet in our household which allows us to be using the 3 iPhones, 2 laptops, 3 televisions and 2 iPads all at the same time. However when visiting the National Broadband Network website my street and the 3 streets next to mine are part of the ‘build preparation’ area and less than a kilometre away in a high density housing area it shows the service is available, which makes me wonder is their internet all that much more reliable and does this point to the logistics behind NBN’s rollout scheme. However, the more important questions to ask are: Has faster internet changed the way Australian families live and communicate?. Does faster internet mean we communicate less because we don’t have to wait as long to access what we want to and therefore spend more time online? or do new technologies and faster access free up more time for what is arguably more important, face to face interaction.
When I asked my mother and father their personal opinion and experiences with internet usage in our home, this is what I found. My father has a work office upstairs which is also where his computer is, unlike my mother, my dad is very technology savvy and has an Instagram and Facebook account as well as a website for his business and his work revolves around internet access which is why we have one of the more expensive data plans. Although this can keep him separate from the rest of the house, he said he feels like a time that does bring the family together is when we all watch a television show at the same time every week which creates conversation and interest. However, it is not always easy to find something we are all interested in on free to air television which is why many families find it easier to resort to their separate screens.
My mum has never had her own personal computer and regretted the fact that she can’t easily put the music she wants on her phone or have a device to watch movies. Our recent Netflix purchase has given her some of this freedom as it is an extremely easy and fast platform to use and also has resolved the issue of not being able to find something we all want to watch. Although we have not gone so far as to create ‘zoning’ around the house ( technology free zones) the dinner table is a place where phones are not allowed, like many other families. So, although technology can make it hard to spend time with family, I do think new technologies are trying to create the fastest, easiest way of having communal viewing in the home.
Ethnographic research can not be created without the help of others and their insights into subjective and objective parts of their real life experiences, this can also mean the collaboration of multiple authors (researchers). This is why Luke Lassiter (2005) states “Ethnography is, by definition, collaborative”, and explains that collaboration implies a constant conversation and not simply an interview technique where only one party is giving the information. Described in:
“Essential to participant observation is the need for communication between the investigator and the people being studied, an important distinguishing point between the social and natural sciences.” — Hortense Powdermaker, Stranger and Friend
We all know marketing and advertising agencies will pay big money for access to ethnographic research in order to know who their target audience is and what they are interested in, therefore making sales. For example, how would we know that everyone ONLY wants to watch television shows about cooking or home renovations without ethnographic research that tells broadcasters that the primary age of viewers are at a stage in their life where they are building and renovating homes. It also gives companies the opportunity to stick their product in the middle of the action and even give their viewers the opportunity to instantly buy their products directly from the television shows website. Over time tv ratings show producers what topics work in reality television and what doesn’t, when a trend is found, nothing is stopping producers from creating more and more of the same shows as they know from past examples it will receive high ratings. It is also extremely easy for ethnographic researchers to search hashtag’s on Instagram, read Facebook status’s and look at tweets to find out exactly how their audience feels about the latest reality TV show. Some shows in Australia like Q&A, Eurovision and Big Brother have even created their own live twitter feed which streams along side the show allowing viewers to share their opinions and more often than not their humorous comments, this just so happens to be the perfect tool for ethnographic field work. However their has been instances where twitter feeds live on TV have gone horribly wrong……
Adams, M.A. 2014, This is why you don’t show twitter streams like on tv, FishBowl NY
Lassiter, L.E. 2005, The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethonography, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
This week I was asked to interview someone from a different generation about their experiences with television as a child and the memories it gave them about the spaces they watched it in and with whom they watched it with. I immediately thought about my mother who had an interesting child hood moving from Florida to Australia, Japan, England and then back to Australia all by the age of 10. My mother, Rika, was born an ‘only child’ in Florida, USA in the 1960’s during the era of the American dream, and as we know the television was a huge symbol for this ideology. Colour television was available in America long before Australia and having a television was a presumed norm for any average American house hold. She lived in a 60’s Californian bungalow style house, it was open plan living, another lifestyle feature not yet introduced to Australian homes. Living close to Disney Land, cartoons such as the Mickey Mouse Club were extremely popular, as she grew older she remembers watching The Three Stooges on the couch with her father and the 6:00pm news broadcast every night, although she did not have siblings to fight with about what would be watched, her father was always in control of the viewing material. My mother being born in 1955 never experienced having black and white television until she moved to Australia at age 8 and even then her parents did not want to buy a television straight away.
Californian Bungalow style house, cerca 1950, Source
When Rika’s parents moved to Australia they had rejected the whole memory and notion of America, it became apparent to Rika that her parents no longer wanted to be associated or tied to the American Dream. This meant that they did not want to buy another television for several years after settling in their new home. However after several years of begging and pleading her parents to buy a tv, Rika went backwards in technology advancement and her family bought the only kind of television available in the late 60’s, a small, black and white boxy television with no remote and no vcr player. The test pattern was a familiar sight and all programs usually ended around 10:30 with a maximum of 2 or 3 channels.
Upon reflection of my mothers memories I realised my personal memories of television as a child has a familial attachment to my dad making pancakes for my sister and I on a sunday morning and waking up at 6am to watch cartoons. Although it is safe to say that my mother and I have had very different experiences of television in the home, what with my experience of growing up with 3 televisions, 2 iPads, 2 laptops, 3 iPhones, Netflix and a Blue ray player which even now is becoming old technology, we still share a similar memory of watching cartoons with our fathers and them almost always having priority over the television….and the couch.
My media space undeniably consists of a lot of Instagram stalking and Facebook scrolling, however I am personally not an avid social media ‘poster’ or sharer of my thoughts and experiences online which is possibly why I find it very difficult to write anything on the topic of myself. It seems to me that my current media space is bombarded only by the best and happiest experiences or aspects of my peers or strangers lives, but never include that fight you had with your friend or that failed grade or any failure at all really. Why is it that within social media it is unexpected or unusual to see a negative or unhappy post?. Is it socially awkward or frowned upon to post anything other than your best self?.
This leads me to question whether my media space is ever a true reflection of an identity or a life and in turn, what are the emotional and physical repercussions on someone who believes it is. I admit, I myself am guilty of only ever posting positive media about myself and also find myself thinking does no one else share the same problems I do? because they’re Instagram sure doesn’t look like it!. I suppose as a media and communications student you must always question and research the validity and honesty of the media space you are entering into, whether it be a news article or an Instagram account.
When conducting any kind of research that involves the public it is necessary to get it approved by a human research ethics committee(HREC). It is important to have an outside party approve that what you are conducting is ethically sound and will not offend, invade privacy or put anyone in danger. As ethics have always been a subjective topic depending on your personal opinion, what is ‘right’ can be different to someone else. To avoid debate about what may or may not be ethical to some, rules are adopted by organisations to inform their employees and the public about what their ethical standards are. The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research is the broad guideline which all research projects must comply with in Australia.
Of course when we surround ourselves with negative people, situations or just a negative mindset, the outcome is going to be negative. But have you ever wondered if that person who always posts those miserable status updates on Facebook is actually making you miserable too?. Well turns out you would have been better off deleting Ned from Facebook who loves to tell you how he lost his job and his girlfriend.
In 2014, Facebook conducted a research study on Emotional Manipulation and to prove that emotional contagion exists on Facebook, meaning that if someone’s Facebook newsfeed is primarily negative posts then they will feel sad or negative without the actual physical interaction with people. They carried this out by manipulating peoples newsfeeds to either primarily negative or positive data and found that in fact emotional contagion is very present online. However, they did this without peoples consent and without a HREC approval which is arguably unethical and illegal. But why did they feel they did not need ethical approval?.
They claimed that they did not need a research committee’s approval as the results would not be shared with the public and was for internal use only. At the time, the study was consistent with Facebook’s policies, however the clauses regarding research were only added 4 months after the study was conducted. When considering peoples mental states of mind and how the manipulation might effect them, 6.7% of Americans suffer from clinical depression, so approximately 46,000 of facebooks user base may have been suffering from depression at the same time they were conducting the research. This means that any kind of unusual amount of negativity or something directly coming from the research could have been responsible for a persons safety or the impact it had upon them. It sounds like Facebook knew they had put peoples lives at risk and tried to cover themselves four months later when they had realised and it was much too late. For as large a company as Facebook to get away with such unethical research is an indicator that individuals wellbeing needs to be put well before a companies interest in research.
Instagram as we all know is completely reliant on interpretation. Unlike Facebook which allows users to express lengthy opinions in status updates, Instagram is image-driven which makes it much easier for users to trick/influence their followers into believing and only seeing a certain aspect of their life as they want them to see it. Although you have the ability to write a caption underneath your photo which is limited to 2200 words (entirely reasonable amount to explain a photo), you are not able to write more than 150 words in your ‘bio’ which is what is supposed to tell people about yourself, arguably setting people up to not properly express themselves before they even start posting. Instagram is however and has never claimed to be a forum used for drawn-out conversation or discussion like Facebook can be used for, which is arguably the beauty of Instagram. But, what are the consequences and harms of portraying yourself as someone who you may not be in real life?. Is the more we post on Instagram the more we search for validation through likes and not through our real lives?. As they say “Being famous on Instagram is like being rich in monopoly money” – it’s not real.
In a recent article in the New York times titled “Facebook made me do it”, this loop of positive reinforcement through likes on Instagram is analysed. The near immediate approval of what you are doing can become addictive and necessary, it may influence us to post more controversial photos just to see how much the barrier can be pushed and what people respond to. The article compares this kind of activity to such things as graffiti or protests, the world wide scale of who’s going to see what you are doing increases the risks you are willing to take, its described as being ‘performative’. I think this is extremely true and see it in my friends I follow on instagram, businesses, fashion labels, organisations, even I myself am guilty of such things. It is hard not to glamourise the photos you post on your online life, with the options of filters and saturations. What in reality is a photo of a cloudy and cold day can instantly become a hot and sun drenched day just with the application of a filter.
The article references the research of Coye Cheshire, a professor of information sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies how we interact online. He thinks that the act of anonymity online is similar to the feeling that is received when in a crowd, you act more impulsively than you might in person and so do things that you otherwise would not face to face. This is often seen in the example of ‘keyboard warriors’, often just bullies who find their voices much easier and louder online than they would in real life. This article is extremely successful in illustrating what the effects of having an online personality can be and the feelings of encouragement and approval which you may or may not like to admit are hard to ignore.
Recently the Australian Communications and Media Authority(ACMA) published a new study looking into how we all like to view our ‘Game Of Thrones’ and ‘Girls’ on online platforms. ACMA is arguably the most reliable source to get research information on media from as they are government run organisation researching to benefit Australians, and if we cant trust the government, who can we trust, right?…
The article is mainly targeting people who are interested in the findings, for example research students, media companies who can learn/use the data. It makes itself very easy to read and appealing to the average person in terms of reading the colour co-ordinated graphs and statistical information, the conclusions are obvious and there is no particular opinion voiced which is what is expected from a government funded research body. The article is not there to sell you anything but purely informative and from an objective stand point. The only possible opinion to be found is in the ‘future of online video content(OVC)’ section which states that the arrival of Netflix in March 2015 will compete directly with local broadcasters like FOXTEL, however even here it does not make a judgement whether one or the other will do better on the market.
In comparison to Nielsen’s article which focus’s more broadly on the overall online landscape and features a huge amount of statistical information with hardly any analysis or justification for the findings or where they came from. It shows graphs of the most used websites online, most used job and education seeking websites online, the role of gender and which one is more active online, which brands have the largest audiences whether it be YouTube, Facebook or VEVO it is clear this report was created to benefit businesses marketing strategies. Although there is no clear opinion in this report and also very clear and factual information which is important, there is still clear bias in catering for business models and not for researchers who want depth of information. It allows brands to see where their target market lies and how to get to them.
The two articles although focusing on similar topics are clearly targeted at two separate audiences. The methods used and depth of research is much higher in the ACMA report, the purpose of the report is much more ethically sound in informing the general public on how their online time is used, on what devices they view it, what encourages a heavier OVC use, the most popular reasons Australians use OVC and age and economic barriers. It is a highly successful research report which separates itself completely from opinion and bias.
Humans are constantly asking questions and the only way to find answers is through research. We unknowingly and knowingly do research every day. When buying a new product, we gather information from different sources in order to get the best deal, when we are engaging with other people we ask questions to research topics we are interested in. However this is very different from scholarly research which is based on factual information concerned with being correct and coming to conclusions from both quantitative and qualitative research. Media research is based on anything to do with the media, what the media produces, its problems, its successes. When I started my final year of high school, the incoming year 7’s were the first year to receive iPads to assist them in their school work. We were all very jealous and complained as to why we weren’t the chosen year to receive these tablets awaiting the downloading of flappy bird, fruit ninja and angry birds. On the bus ride home however I started to notice that these iPads were having an unseen effect on these young children which was seriously disgruntling. None of them spoke to each other. With eyes glued to the screens of their iPad, this familiar bus ride was suddenly so very different to my experience of yelling, gossiping, singing and genuinely enjoying each others company. Although technology and more specifically social media has done some seriously amazing things to the world and continues to everyday, I would like to research whether or not the benefits of social media are worth the distractions younger generations feel when undertaking school work, uni work, working on relationships and entering the work force. Do younger generations know how to work as hard as older generations who did not grow up with such easily accessible information and distractions like Facebook, Instagram and Tumblr at the click of a button?.
As The Doors so rightly said “no safety or surprise, the end”, everything has an ending, much like our first BCM110 assignment. When I first heard our assignment was going to be blogging, I immediately dread even the thought of writing my own opinions on such an open and critical space. However as I learned the topics we would be asked to blog about, my attitude soon changed. From the media effects model, to who controls the media, to semiotics and controversial images I have learnt that a sign always has a signifier and a signified, NOT to believe everything you read in the newspaper as true and always remember from WHOSE point of view the piece is being written. I’ve learnt that we can’t just blame the media for societal problems but that actually we must first look at ourselves and the social issues surrounding our lives.
This week we learnt about Children and the media and the fact that because of their vulnerability and youthfulness they become an easy target for the media as they are easily persuaded and bought. This topic is one that creates ‘moral panic’. Not only are children subject to media exploitation they are also the subject of it. Shows like “Toddlers In Tiaras” and “Dance Moms” – clearly American, illustrate this idea very well. As children are forced into leotards, covered in fake tan, full faces of make up beaming and huge almost scary smiles plastered across their faces, there is no way you could argue that this isn’t child exploitation and abuse even if the children say they like the pageants and the life style their parents have chosen for them.
Using this case study, the topics we have discussed over the past 6 weeks can be seen. The media effects model is evident in this show as it can be seen to contribute to the epidemic of poor self image amongst young women and diseases like Bulimia and Anorexia but the way that these shows are received completely depends on the recipient. If the viewer is aware that these shows are not reality and just another social example of peoples unruly eagerness to be ‘perfect’ or for their children to be perfect then this is not the cause of the show at all. Similar to this is the idea of connotations and denotations, these shows denote young girls dressed in tutus and going into beauty pageants but the connotations of these shows are child exploitation, over sexualisation of children and placing moral value only on looks.
In addition to this the network which hosts Toddlers in Tiaras, TLC is a huge corporation who really only cares about making money. They also screen shows such as “19 Kids and Counting” and “16 and Pregnant” evidently they don’t mind what they put to air as long as its making them money.
The mediated public sphere is a place for discussion and debate amongst the public on issues that matter to them, it is seperate from the government and creates a shift in thinking from what the media DOES to the people, to what the people DO with the media. A television show about marketing and advertising “The Gruen Transfer” contributes to this metaphor of the public sphere greatly by showing controversial advertisements, some even banned, and creating discussion amongst a pannel of advertising professionals. Gruen Transfer also features a segment called “The Pitch”, here companies are asked to “sell the unsellable”, a topic which raised massive debate, was “Banning all religions”.
It prompted the largest response from the public in The Gruen Transfer’s four year history with over 160,000 views (and growing) on YouTube (Campaign Brief 2011). The show’s typically controversial topics that have been turned into advertisements in the past have included legalising child labour and lowering the legal drinking age to 16, but have never received such a reaction. Religion is a massive issue amongst the public sphere which creates debate for all human beings as almost every person has their own opinion on the subject and Grun Transfer is just one of the media texts which have sparked discussion. However It can merely be called discussion when literally thousands of passionate posts and responses have been posted on various forums and Youtube.
How this can recieve more debate than making an advertisement about legalising child labour is bemusing to me, but it shows how sensitive a topic religion is in the public sphere and also demonstatrates the usefulness of such platforms as youtube for hosting this debate. Will Anderson, famous Australian comic and host of the Gruen Transfer said on the show ‘for the first time in four seasons of Gruen we had agencies decline to take a shot at it. No one had a problem when we wanted to bring back child labour, invade New Zealand or euthanise everyone over 80, but this idea scared people.'(Will Anderson 2011).