í Assignments

Digital Churnalism, as described by Nick Davies (Chap 3, 88-89), is the use of non-original material (usually directly taken from PR generated press releases or wire copy).  This material that is cobbled together from this marketing material, contains little to no actual news (as traditionally defined) or new information (based on defined journalistic practices).  At the most, a website may add a paragraph to the pre-formed message or attach a link to the story & publish it to attrack new & more clicks to increase traffic & meet the quota set by main websites based on web-based traffic.  Things like independent, in depth research, fact-checking, sources, citation, etc – are not being performed on the 88% of all articles we see online.  This kind of shallow, speed based story generation does little to nothing to support traditional journalistic values, journalistic integrity or monitoring government/big business, or inform the public.

Katherine Milkman’s “want/should conflict” explains the multilayered push-pull relationship of the user’s desire of immediacy and desire for quality content with the user’s willingness to compromise quality (the “should” self) for immediacy (the “want” self). The web is more than eager to play into this compromise and offer immediate content, pulling the user into a cyclical engagement of continued clicks on low quality websites and web products. The web’s competition for most timely posts to attain the most clicks means it prioritizes new posts over quality material. A news story time stamped five minutes ago that only summarizes an hour-old original post with more information will generate a higher ranked search result despite not having as much information. The web urges us to click on the most timely material, not the most substantial.

The overlaying layer of conflict is not between the user and what the web so readily offers, it is the user’s choices in web use and need to recognize that, as Taylor puts it, “we have… multiple selves and they want different things.” Though our choices on the web define a version of us through algorithms designed to offer us more based on past consumption, it cannot define us by knowing what we do not tell it. The internet will not offer us the opportunity to see past ourselves and engage in what Milkman calls the “should want.” We need to be aware of web use, how it uses us, and mindfully engage in thought out topics and activities rather than blindly consuming what the web offers.

Milkman’s want/should conflict:

School Professor Katherine Milkman defines the want/should conflict as an act that is driven by impulse and quickly made by what we think we want, rather being guided by the things that are “deeply-rooted desires” and should want instead. She believes that although many people know what is better for them, they opt for a much faster option. The “should” options are often seen as duty and the “want” as pleasure. Milkman believes it is this very notion that occurs when taking in knowledge and information online. The things that motivate people to look up specific topics, or books, movies, are actually being deciphered based on data taken by previous searches. This allows for the same items to be viewed and increases the number of “want” versus “should” desires.

Angeline Henriquez
Digital Media and Society
September 21, 2015

Chapter 2 Definitions- “Social Production”

Social Production is a term coined by NYU professor Clay Shirkly and it refers to the creation of culture by individuals scattered around the globe using digital technology “for the pleasure of it and without asking permission first”. It emphasizes the decentralization of the previous institutional model that reserved culture production only for a few and embraces a system that is open for everyone, using the internet and social media as a platform that allows for collaboration. On this decentralization, Taylor states “Barriers to entry have been removed, gatekeepers have been demolished, and the costs of creating and distributing culture have plummeted” (p.46). Other similar terms to describe this phenomenon are “peer production”, “crowdsourcing” and “wikinomics”. All terms agreeing that the intrinsic motivation to create culture or collaborate on its creation, trumps the quality of cultured made by professionals that are paid to produce it. “If people are intrinsically motivated to produce culture, and technology enables them to act on this motivation effortlessly and affordably and without financial reward, then amateurs are less compromised than compensated professionals and thus superior ”(p.47).

Although Taylor admits that the professional class is not faultless as she mentions the barriers they impose through licensing and credentialing, she is not completely sold on the ideas of the “new-media utopians”. First, she highlights the fact that new-media utopians assume that amateurs don’t expect any monetary compensation and that fame, admiration, and social status are as much as a reward. Second, she emphasizes that this theory doesn’t take into consideration production costs, which disregards that a decline in industry profitability affects artistic production. Finally, she states that “it is deeply cynical to deny professionals any emotional investment in their work”. How can passion be measured? The truth is most individuals exists somewhere in between amateurs and professionals, searching for a balance between passion and career.

2.0 people, the new digital age generation. We are the people who have grown up with the understanding of new technology and how to use it most effectively. 2.0 people are different from those that came before them. This generation prefers having everything immediately at their fingertips.

They take in and process information differently. I like to think that most of this generation is well informed with the news but not by how a person would normally get it. For example, I get the most important news from being on social media. All the horrible events that took place in the last year or so, and the events that are still happening today, I find out about them through all of my social media platforms. I don’t have a news app nor do I watch the news. Surprisingly, the news found on there is very detailed and informative and more accurate than anything that is televised.

2.0 people are always connected to the Internet. If the elderly are having troubles with any technology, it is probably the 2.0 people they call to help them. When researching, 2.0 people are able to find what they need within minutes. The problem however might be finding the correct and accurate source. 2.0 people tend to like having things quickly, which can be a fault of the generation. The question of quality vs. quantity comes into play. Is it about how many different sources you can find or how much information can you find in one source?

This “digital native” generation is able to create whatever they please on all platforms and share their content immediately with one click of a button. There are no limits to what the 2.0 people can do with the Internet.

The term “churnalism” was first coined in 2008 by BBC journalist Waseem Zakir. It refers to the trend in journalism where reporters cobble together stories from wire copy and press releases rather than doing the actual investigation, research and fact checking. They may add a few quotes or comments and then “churn” it out to their readers.

While not limited to digital media sites, Taylor explains that because of the urgency and speed of the Internet, more journalists resort to these shortcuts online than in traditional print media. Taylor interviewed Nick Davies, a journalist who has been outspoken about “churnalism,” who said that a study in Britain found that only 12% of material found in the British press contained original reporting (Taylor, 89). A report was done in Baltimore in 2011 found similar results. Most new information came from traditional print media – very little from online media.

The main cause is the pressure on digital reporters to produce stories at a faster and faster rate while spending less money. The dangers are many in that the more often a story is reposted the easier it is for facts to be distorted. There is a huge margin of error in this type of reporting. And when a person is linked from one story to another, quite often the linked article is not current, causing the reader to be misinformed, even if it was correct at the time it was first posted.

The Huffington Post boasts of publishing over twelve hundred items per day (95) and in order to do that they demand their writers spend very little time on each story. And because page views determine advertising revenue, editors are pursuing subjects that they feel will get the most page views. They study what is trending and then writers pull together whatever sources they can and then churn out an abbreviated article. The Huffington Post is a perfect example of “churnalism”.

Due by midnight Tuesday, September 22nd. You must complete both posts to receive credit

Post 1. Choose and define one of the terms below. [Tag this post as “Taylor definitions Ch2” or “Taylor definitions Ch3”]. Please make an effort to choose a term that has not yet been defined. (250-300 words)

Chapter 2: “complex creative labor” (41), “social or peer production” (46), “feeling bonds” (49), Keynes’s “art of life itself” (52), Florida’s “information-and-idea-based economy” (57), “networked amateurism” (63).

Chapter 3: “2.0 people” (68), Jarvis’s “epistemological shift” (76), “digital dimes” (80), “digital churnalism” (89), “online content farms” (97), “the bored at work network” (99), Milkman’s “want/should conflict” (100).

Post 2. Using one or two examples from “Chapter 5: The Double Anchor” to make your point, explain how digital media is complicating our relationship to copyright. [Tag this post as “Hybrid Assignment 03”]. (300-350 words)

Taylor argues a valid point because the fate of creative people in this so-called new world order has been compromised by a Capitalist society.  When it is all about “Buy and Sell”, a creative person, in a Marxist world, can’t be creative when limitations are placed on one’s ability to free their minds and bring productive innovative ideas to the forum of an environment that prevents an independent expression.  Therefore, the fate of creative people, in the new economy, is to “exist in two incommensurable realms of value and be torn between them”, because they are torn between creative expression for the purpose of art and culture, and then are caught in a consumer based world where products are manufactured and sold.  In a Capitalist society, products and services are considered more of an asset than that of the creative expression delivered as talent and freely expressed in an autonomous environment.  As a result, the creative person is torn between the two worlds and is caught between the values of the talent vs. the value of the product.

In addition to the creative person such as artists; there are the teachers, activists and others who view their work as serving “the public good”.  They too are caught in a similar catch 22.  These groups of people are in positions to have strong voices in order to change a situation and circumstance, and teach those who are unaware.  However, when there is no platform for creative expression and the learning forum is compromised because of bureaucratic commercialism, these groups are also torn between selling goods for labor, and are not able to be creative in expression for the purpose of being free to communicate without being compromised for capital gain.

After reading this chapter, I’ve taken a closer look at the purpose of it all, and I start to question, just how free am I in this capitalist society?  When I think further, I realize that this is a kingdom of Capitalism perpetuated by Dictators who look at us as peasants who will use us to help them to gain more power.

The Internet is an information highway in which a person can access a vast amount of information by way of a computer, phone and tablet, to retrieve valuable data, evidence, facts, news, and socially interact with people around the world.  It is a democratizing way for the world to connect with one another and be free to do so.  In Astra Taylor’s The People’s Platform, Taking Back Power and Culture in a Digital Age, Chapter one’s “Peasant Kingdom” , Taylor gives us the beginning of the spot lighted take on how we are not as free as we thought in the new age of technology and information sharing.  In fact, Taylor explains that the democratic audience of the information highway is nothing more than a repressive state of people who fall in the scheme of things by Capitalists endeavors, without any knowledge of it.  A Peasant Kingdom starts to explain how we are pawns of Capitalists schemes, which use us as for capital gain.  It was interesting to me how Taylor explains how “The online sphere inspires incessant talk of gift economies and public spiritedness and democracy, but commercialism and privatization and inequality lurk beneath the surface”. After reading this chapter, I’ve taken a closer look at the purpose of it all, and I start to question, just how free am I in this capitalist society?  When I think further, I realize that this is a kingdom of Capitalism perpetuated by Dictators who look at us as peasants who will use us to help them to gain more power.

“Amateurs,’ Shirky writes, ‘are sometimes separated from professionals by skill, but always by motivation… The essence of amateurism is intrinsic motivation: to be an amateur is to do something for the love of it.” (47)

“Artist’s often enjoy what they do, suggesting they might continue being creative even when the monetary incentives to do so become weaker. In addition, artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form… many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars.” (48)

I loved this chapter, largely because it brought to mind my own experience as an underpaid and undervalued artist, and my familiarity with the commonness of this experience in the lives of many of my friends and loved ones, artists, teachers, and those who work in human services positions.

Personally speaking, I am often paid solely with free beer in bars when I DJ or am involved in live performance settings that utilize my aesthetic tastes, ability to manage crowds, personally curated collection, technical know how, and stunning personality (j/k). It’s generally fine and accepted (the free beer is definitely enjoyed) when I’m hanging out with friends, vibing, and collaborating with others to create a musical and visual space that feels life affirmative and like an offering of my creativity for a communal kinship (rather than an egoic endorsement of my personal “brand” – can’t brand other people’s music can only feature it, otherwise that’s appropriation). But to think that because I get joy from this experience, that this means it would be shallow and somehow lessen the quality of my offerings or services as a artist, creative, and working person for me to request some form of compensation that is not alcohol, is really frustrating. “We tend to believe that the labor of those who appear to love what they do does not by definition qualify as labor.” (Taylor, 51)

I get the basic principles involved with running a business (I’ve done that too, run other people’s businesses to support myself and my own after hours artistic practice) – if the bar doesn’t make money because only a handful of people show up to the event, then of course you are not getting cab fare home. I enjoy playing music for other people, especially when they enjoy it, but like any work, as Taylor suggests as much, there are plenty of moments or parts of doing that work that don’t feel enjoyable. I’m not going to stop doing this work because I don’t get paid with paper money (the self-actualization is pretty grand) but to suggest that the various struggles that accompany this endeavor do not affect my abilities or “productivity” because the value of this creative output or cultural product is simultaneously fetishized and disregarded is absurd.

Free beer doesn’t pay for my cab home with all my gear at 3 am. Free beer doesn’t acknowledge the years of digging and in-person conversations I gathered pre-spotify, shazam, and youtube to learn about the musical cultures and craft I curate from and it unfortunately doesn’t banish random straight yuppie dude bros that stumble into the scene (it’s not that type of party) and come up to the booth in an aggressive and drunken manner demanding I play some top 40 song off their i-phone. Free beer is not going to entice other potential collaborators to participate in your project if there is no means of other viable accomodation to offer (payment, stipend, or even a couch to crash on.) Admiration doesn’t mean anything if you have promoted a monthly residency across several social media platforms (where 90 – 100 people’s profiles click yes they will attend) and only 9 people come out that night. Social status does not fix the fact that the venue has double booked your space, again, so you have to aimlessly wait around for the last crowd to stagger off and start way later. It’s not like that every time we throw this event, but sometimes it is and then some – unforeseen complications that make you wonder if you should have some sort of additional emergency medical training under your belt.

Passion is nice but it’s not going to pay your bills. Passion is an overly demanded ideal that the public (consumer/shareholder) puts on the artist – I would almost suggest that it is an American invention like the pursuit of happiness as an end goal and only encouraged potential outcome/dividend. It’s like the only recognized authenticity afforded to your labors is your own participation in stepping into the box of the starving artist, you become a product that doesn’t sell but looks sexy. If I’m being lauded for being an artist, can I get some affirmation as a worker, or beyond that, as a human? Because staying up really late in a bar drinking and playing to an empty room is not exactly a life affirmative feeling – it’s not the reason I got into the craft I got into, I got into it for the “feeling-bonds”  that Taylor speaks of on page 49. These feeling-bonds are the crucial piece that drives the passion behind culture and creativity. That I get to form these bonds with people who are open to being moved by music and story-telling is the greatest form of compensation I can imagine but it’s not enough to keep me pragmatically organized and motivated to consistently produce them. If we lived in a bartering society – maybe I could trade the beer for useful things like nourishing food and decent shelter and the various expensive materials I need to continue to be paid in beer – but so far despite how big beer is in America it’s not a valid form of currency for anybody else besides alcoholics and artists who love to perform invisible and unacknowledged labor for it. Where is this almost darwinian stockpile of intrinsic motivation I need in order to gain this idealized cognitive surplus that will unlock my ability to be a fully self-realized working poor artist creating feeling-bonds and getting free beer in bars? Do I need a unique QR code and compatible app to unlock this motivation, because as far as I can tell, all this beer is doing is creating a haze around the larger realities of what it means to be a disregarded worker within a society and world experiencing hyper technological development in an insane market economy.

Sergio Rodriguez