Christian,
It is really short right now but outlines exactly what I intend to do.

If one was looking to read about the Internet and read Miller and Slater at first they would come away with a much different picture than if they had read Benkler. On the surface, Benkler is discussing the vast potential for the Internet to make human welfare better. Miller and Slater are concerned with the inner workings of the Trini culture and how this directly relates to Trini’s Internet use. I feel these topical differences do lie on the surface. The authors of these books are seemingly interested in the same general types of questions – how is the Internet used to autonomize people? How is the Interned used to gain capital? In hindsight we can see that Miller and Slater almost paved the way for some of Benkler’s perspectives. The “nonrival” information flowing out of Trini’s homepages can be seen not only as a means of Trini identity formation, but as the beginnings of virtual communities. Frequently, these websites had guest pages, and means of group communication which could facilitate the growth of social networking. Both Miller and Slater, and Benkler are optimistic about the potential for online social networking. Although the research was done awhile ago, overall I think that the Miller and Slater book fits as a neat little example of some of the broader concepts that Benkler is discussing.

Democracy is a form of government that is directed by the votes of the constituency. New media technology, specifically data mining and OpinionBots, turn democracy into a government that is run by the trails of our credit cards. If Martin and I felt Howard was depressing in the first half of the book, as Howard said it himself, we would be “destroyed” after reading the second half. This prophecy came true. I feel that the new technology is turning our democratically run elections into a bit of a joke. Websites can be tailored to “narrowcast” to particular individuals. “Technology exposes the holes in campaigns” (pg 154). These holes, or paradoxes, are not fixed, merely managed, according to campaign managers. Before the Internet politics were run very differently. We were governed based on our votes, or polling. I had made the analogy last week in class that current campaigns are run in a fashion similar to the algorithms on Amazon.com. Our data shadows can be mined for information that not only tell us which book to read next, but who to vote for in the upcoming elections. At what point does this read as a democracy? Or at what point is this not some Orwellian nightmare come true?

I think this view of political culture isn’t the best analytical tool due to its lack of finite definition. I feel it is difficult to examine political culture critically if we cannot draw a line between who is ultimately involved and who is not. I think it is because of the new information technology that even Howard is having difficulty deciding this. Ultimately I think he has a bit of a cynical view regarding political hypermedia, but tries hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps if he had made it more clear if he thought political hypermedia would bring to good or bad to the future of political culture, his ideas would hold more analytical power. However, this may just be a personal preference of mine. Some may enjoy his uncertainty and use it as a launching pad for debate.

I read this question as asking what forces are causing and pushing the examples in Price’s book. I think there is definitely an account of causation here, yet I am not sure if we can change anything to obtain different consequences. Very broadly, Price’s accounts seem to be an illustration of the classic power struggle man has been witness to since the beginning of time. Who is it that ultimately has the right to protect common man? Is it the common man? And if it is the common man that begs the question of whether or not the common man has the right to freedom from said protection. There are always vested interests – whether they are corporate, security based, or humanitarian in nature. These interests inherently speak to who has the power to procure solutions to the problems that lie within the interests. That is to say, regardless of nations working together to create a common law (e. g. satellite broadcasting or Internet security), there will be a power struggle involved. Who ultimately has a right to create the national or international values that establish laws?

Are there groups, organizations, governments, etc., that are capable of seeing the entire picture? I think this particular question is answered in the negative especially when examined in the struggle over the V-Chip. Price ultimately retells this account as a power struggle. Parents needed to be “empowered” through the help of the law. They have the right to protect their children. Yet Hollywood has the right to make money. Ultimately the rhetoric surrounding this debate focuses on the question posed at the beginning of this rant – who has the right and responsibility to protect children from imagery that may not even be bad for them in the first place?

Secondly, I think that Innis would have a very difficult time trying to decide how the Internet is monopolizing knowledge. Innis seems to have a large problem with the education system noting that it is born out of the idea of a “natural state.” This natural state then influences how people learn, think, and communicate about the idea of knowledge and the idea of ideas. I am having an internal struggle as to whether or not Innis would see the Internet as liberating us from the natural state of education, or further cement us in our own thoughts.

Knowing that this work has been scrutinized for its lack of linear thought, I decided to read the essays in the order in which they appealed to me. Doing this gave me a sense of deja vouz as I read “The Bias of Communication” after “A Plea for Time.” These two essays seem to be speaking to each other, but then again, they seem to be tackling two completely different ideas. One reason I felt deja voux relates to the unifying notion of a “monopoly of knowledge” that is ever present across these two essays. I felt this basic idea that was presented in “The Bias of Communication” could help to explain a lot of the ideas presented in “A Plea for Time.” The monopoly of knowledge began in religious institutions as non-secular establishments controlled the flow of knowledge. This monopoly eventually was taken over by copyists guilds which were responsible for and controlled the flow of books. This monopoly of knowledge existed as a monopoly over the written word.

“A Plea for Time” establishes a very depressing view of the written word. “Communication based on the eye in terms of printing and photography had developed a monopoly which threatened to destroy Western civilization first in war and then in peace. This monopoly emphasized individualism and in turn stability and created illusions in catchwords such as democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech” (pg. 80-81). This coupled with the notion that “as modern developments in communication have made for greater realism they have made for greater possibilities of delusion” (pg. 82) establishes the written word as a faulty mechanism which serves to dupe the masses into believing in a governmental infrastructure which seemingly fails to exist as a function of its labeling. This leads me to ask Innis, “What does exist? Wherein lays the truth?” I understand the inherent value in being cautious of the written word, and that in fact it can cause a delusion of sorts. However, in today’s information-obsessed culture, what else do we have? The greatest institutions of higher learning rely solely on the written word as points of reference and truth. Has our definition of truth truly led contemporary academics into a “sham independence of democracy?” (pg. 90) Is there a freedom to be found in the difference between education and information?

As a final sidebar thought (I truly used these chapters as idea/question files), how does the Internet play into this difference between education and information? I wonder if Innis would be appalled by the vast amount of written information/garbage that can be found on the Internet. Or rather, would he applaud the movement of pod casts, streaming video and other information that is transferred to the audience via the mechanism of the ear?

One direct manifestation of this can be seen in the development of the Miss Universe website in 1999. As the Trinis navigated the dynamics of positioning, they were able to display their culture, professionalism, and potential for commercialism through the Miss Universe website. Miller and Slater do not outright argue that the website would have been different had it been created in a different geographical location. However, I feel they would not disagree with this statement. The Miss Universe website is an example where the infusion of Trini values and culture into the end product is clear and visible. Furthermore, the website exemplifies the Trinidadian group identity as being Wordly citizens capable of entrepreneurialism and professionalism on a global scale.

This ability to parse out the impact of the culture on the medium is in direct contrast to Williams’s argument that the two are inseparable in the case of American television. I feel that this stark difference could be traced to differences between the two technologies. When television began broadcasting, there were relatively few choices of content. It was in its essence a mass medium in that it had very little variation in message content being delivered to the masses. I will argue that the Internet’s content varies drastically (even in its earliest stages) and is less of a mass medium because of this. The Internet’s personalized structure allows for a more personalized analysis of the medium. That is to say, in having such a wide variety of content available to the mass audience, it is plausible to analyze the Internet in terms of the impact of a culture on the Internet and vice-versa. As the television environment has evolved to include hundreds of potential channels and digital recording capacity, it would be interesting to see if Williams would continue to argue that the influence of culture cannot be separated from the influence of the medium.

The “Dynamics of Positioning” are quite evident throughout the Trini’s use of the Internet as explained in chapters 3 and 4. The authors spend quite a bit of time and effort explaining the dynamics of objectification (and how it relates to expansive realization and expansive potential) and normative freedom, however, they seem to leave the dynamics of positioning in the dust in chapter 1. I found this construct one of the most compelling explanations of the relationship Trini’s have with the Internet. For example, Williams and Slater note that the dynamic of positioning “is all about the local and global being out of step with each other” (pp. 19). I think this elegantly explains how Trinis were continually trying to establish themselves as Trinis as well as maintaining a cosmopolitan “world netizen” identity. A concrete example of this would be the personal webpages that Trinis established. The authors noted these websites frequently and literally welcomed visitors to Trinidad. Ironically, the websites were hosted from Trini college students abroad in the United States. This is a perfect manifestation of the juxtaposition of the local and global “being out of step with each other.” These students were desperate to identify themselves as being attached to their mental or virtual (ex) local space, while remaining in a physical global space. Williams and Slater fail to make the connection between this example and the dynamic of positioning. I feel the application of this dynamic was underused and can more adequately explain Trinis’ uses of the Internet when framed as the “local and global being out of step with each other” as opposed to expansive realization or expansive potential.

This framing can also be useful when trying to understand the presentation of Carnival on government, commercial and personal websites. The authors note the argument that this is a kind of “hyper enactment” of the Trini culture. However, they fail to see the connection that these websites are an example of the local and global being out of step with each other. These websites seem to say, “Here is my (local) culture, I am going to sell it to you and other tourists (global).” The selling may be in internet hits, information, or literal currency. Regardless there is an understated tension between the local and global being established on these websites.

One other major contention I have with this portion of Fischer’s analysis is somewhat related to statistics. If Fischer could use statistical analyses to support his claims regarding the demise of rural telephony, he should also be able to statistically show what forces lead to rural America re-uptaking the telephone. This omission is irritating to me. Perhaps Fischer does address this later in the book, and I will find out what led farmers back to the telephone lines.

Grim, huh?

Beginning with Chapter 4 “Programming: Distribution and Flow,” it is easy to see how one could critique Williams as being “uneasy” with data. His presentation of the raw data is somewhat overwhelming and tedious. The data are almost left to speak for themselves as Williams offers convoluted explanations of the establishment of flow in his “commentary” sections. I found myself reading these sections several times to fully comprehend what he was speculating. This awkward approach to a content analysis felt forced in his cultural/analytical approach to studying television.

Furthermore, Chapter 5 “Effects of Technology and its Uses” left this reader feeling quite dimly about communication studies and social science in general. Williams creates a sense that television is so intensely immersed within American culture that we cannot parse out its effects. Instead we are forced to study the socialization of an entire culture. In a discussion on the effects of media violence, Williams explains the potential dichotomy between a society that seemingly “discourages violent behavior; violent behavior is constantly represented on television; we need to study its effects” (pg. 126) and a society that “encourages violent behaviors; violent behavior is constantly represented and reported on television, its major communications system” (pg. 126). As provocative as this may be, Williams notes that the only way to study this contradiction is to study this “sociology of that contradiction.” Yet he offers no ways in which to adequately do this.

It is within this lack of an approach that Neuman’s critique resonates with me. I do realize the importance of asking these questions. Yet at times, for a novice scholar, the methods to these answers seem too overwhelming to obtain.