Andrew McStay - Artificial Barriers?

Although the United Kingdom has a history of making laws to respect the privacy of its people I have always found the topic to be a grey area. On one hand this is the country that introduced laws against the invasion of privacy as far back as the 14th century (McStay, 68) and has culturally always held peoples private life in high regard. On the other hand the UK is also a nation that is notorious for its high number of surveillance and CCTV cameras, leading to fears that the UK is on its way to becoming a Big Brother nation much like the one in the George Orwell novel 1984. The use of camera has been heavily debated but for all the fears over how these cameras are used the cameras do at least respect the idea of ones own privacy in their own home. Still the idea of the outside world being under the lens 24/7 can make a person feel like the authorities does not trust them in a "everyone is a potential criminal" kind of way. The cameras might not be intended for you but they still watch what you do and that can be seen as an insult to the idea of liberal freedoms.

I think what is even more worrying is how we are surveyed online. Online surveillance differs to the likes of CCTV because it does not have a physical presence, you can not see the device that is being used to monitor your online activity and as a result some people are unaware that they are even being watched. Even those who are aware that they are being watched tend to view the subject with indifference due to not knowing exactly what they are dealing with.

"Boundaries between private and public are utterly blurred and it is perhaps the inability or unwillingness to process this idea that leads to lack of proper care over personal data." (McStay, 70)

So even though there is an awareness that we are being watched we don't take steps towards opposing it because as a whole people do not have a concrete idea of what constitutes as private information. Social Networking has played a large role in this because people have now become open to sharing information about themselves, information that others would decline to share given the opportunity. So where do we draw the line on what is and isn't private information? Are people being too careless or overcautious with their information? Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg has his own viewpoint on the subject.

"Although this book maintains a different viewpoint on privacy, Zuckerberg is right in his assertion that privacy is a concept that is evolving. How we legislate and conceive of privacy must change, particularly in light of profiling machines that depend little on personally identifiable information yet may impact corporeally and increasing determine much of daily life." (McStay, 70)

The internet has changed the way people express themselves and it is much easier to create a profile of a person than it ever has been. Digging through a persons photographs, following what they do and making a profile of them based on information you gather is or was commonly frowned upon years ago. Now, however, such actions could almost be considered a normality with the likes of Facebook's timeline feature almost encouraging people to do just this. So how do we approach privacy now?

Although this kind of profiling can be a concern it is not invasion of privacy from other individuals that people are worried about. The biggest worry for people in regards to online privacy is the way in which peoples browsing habits are being used for data gathering, namely the way in which corporations can use this data to make money.

Jan van Dijk is referenced and I personally agree with his view of the subject.

"According to van Dijk (2006) it is a fundamental right of freedom to determine one's own personal relationships, and conduct them without observation or interference. He argues that this may be threatened by the use of communication networks and information systems that register behaviour and relationships at a distance." (McStay, 72)

Although I do agree with van Dijk I should add that I think this is an issue with both automated systems and the involvement of other people. One of the biggest dangers of social networks applies to people who may not use them but know others who do, what is there to stop other people from posting your business online? Networks have changed the way people treat the concept of privacy. People who see no issue in posting their own personal business may also have no issue in posting personal details about other people who do not wish for such information to be shared.

The way corporations use the our information has been frowned upon by many and this creates problems for the groups behind these algorithms and information networks.

"This proves a hindrance for companies that wish to make revenue from sociality. For uses of social networks this definition has particular resonance, given that they are predicted on traceability and transparency of data for advertisers and marketers, the weakening of distinction between private and public, and the commodification of networked relations and the ever nebulous 'third party' entities." (McStay, 72/73).

More than any other reason the ability to trace personal information and use it for the likes of targeted advertising is why a site such as Facebook was able to succeed on the level it has. Facebook's encouragement of the sharing of information by the public is how the website was able to become the highly valued publicly traded corporation it is today. Facebook makes money from advertising and it just so happens that it has one of the most effective advertising systems of all. Anything you post on Facebook, anything you like, share or talk about on Facebook will be used for targeted advertising. If you like a film you may end up with your side bar covered in advertisements for similar films or services that offer the sale of or streaming of films. It is a very effective system but there is one big issue in all of this, someone or something somewhere has access to all of your data, your social network posts, your internet history, your Google searches, all of it. It is not just social networks that deal with targeted advertisements, most websites have it now. People may be willing to accept targeted advertising but it has done nothing to quell the fears that our data will one day be used for something much more undesirable.

The sad reality is that really we are all partly to blame for the issue although we may seem to care we clearly do not show the right amount of commitment to responsible computer use.
"Our privacy-oriented behaviour is riddled with contradiction. Schwider-ski-Grosche (2006) highlights that users themselves are the weakest link in the security chain and the ideal user who uses up-to-date antivirus software, personal firewalls and patches their operating systems regularly does not exist." (McStay, 75)
It can feel very difficult to do all the right things, people are right to be somewhat timid about agreeing to updates, not everyone is computer literate. Computers can be complex machines and there can be all sorts of unseen issues going on behind the scenes, a program may not longer update due to an earlier infection, re-installs may be required, you could struggle in identifying a legitimate Adobe update with a fake that is designed to look real.
The ideal computer user exists in a very small minority, the average PC user does not often defragment their PC or open it up to clean out dust, why would they? If their other electronic devices can go years without any operating failures why should it be any different for PC?
It is a common mentality and one that causes an endless series of problems. I think steps need to be taken to educate users on how to operate PC's, in schools they do not teach people how to search their hard drive for spyware and ad-ware that can not be removed with an anti-virus program, PC users have to teach themselves how to fix these problems on their own.

"The online behavioural advertising industry sees consumer trust and confidence as necessary and something to be won so as to create a fertile environment for their practices."
Consumer trust should be a big ask by the advertising industry but surprisingly consumers seem to be more open with their trust than you would expect them to be. It is true that consumer behavior is contradictive and that people become fools when an easy, no hassle option is presented to them. People take their technology for granted and in this modern day internet using society people expect everything to work automatically.

To do a small amount of research would expose some shocking facts about the ways in which people mistreat and disrespect their own privacy and standards of what they consider privacy. If the concept of privacy is indeed changing then we need to find a balance. A person should be able to share what they like about themselves but there has to be lines drawn somewhere because it is easy to intrude on others own personal business and do so unopposed, that needs to change.
The advertising industries may be keen on using personal data for profiling but they themselves are walking on a thin line, if these practices ever do anything to widely upset consumers then it is likely changes will be made. It is happening already, a lot of common online practices are on their way out and soon we will be able to see the likes of digital consumers claim refunds on products they are unhappy with. It may not seem like it now the public do indeed value their rights when it matters or when there is something to gain from doing so.

References:
McStay, A. (2011) The Mood of Information (New York: Continuum). Chapter 4.

Charles Krinsky - Moral Panics over Contemporary Children and Youth

I can see why young people and people who identify as sub-cultures become easy targets in the media. Lets list some of the disadvantages these groups have going against them using young people as the main example. First of all young people (teenagers in particular) have no political platform to defend themselves, if you are of school age you can not be employed nor can you become part of an establishment where people will listen to you and take you seriously. Teenagers have very little power, they are too young to work, too young to vote, too young to be elected for a political position and as a whole they are too young to build up a powerful establishment where they can have an impact and hold a position of power. Young people do not have any of those things. Age discrimination against the young is one of the few types of widespread discrimination that people will not object to, it is true there are forms of immaturity that come with being young but considering immaturity is the biggest problem maker younger people have the odds unfairly weighed against them.

Although Jock Young was referring to drug users in the book The Drugtakers: The Social Meaning of Drug Use (1971), it is not difficult to apply the issues faced by drug users with the issues faced by under 18's.
"Young’s book shows that media condemnation of drug taking not only led to more arrests, but also resulted in a greater sense of community and shared identity among drug users, who increasingly felt alienated from the mainstream." (Krinsky, 1)
Young people have been alienated so much in the media that part of the problem with handling young people now is how can an adult communicate with them. Examples of youth culture and the divide between adults and teenagers can be seen in films such as Kidulthood (Menhaj Huda, 2006). Kidulthood is a narrative about the lives lived by intercity high school children as they struggle with their own concepts of maturity (sex, drugs, pregnancy, gang violence, crime etc). Kidulthood is an interesting case as the main characters are all people teenagers are meant to identify with, depending on how you choose to view the film the characters can either be conflicted and confused teens who are learning harsh truths about the real world or you can see the characters as unethical people who don't fully understand what is acceptable behavior. Many have defended the film saying that what the characters go through are all things teenagers go through and I find those kind of statements to be unintentionally negative. Although there are cases of it happening do we really want characters from films like Kidulthood to be seen as the popular image of the average teenager, more importantly do teens themselves want to be stereotyped as being no different to the characters portrayed in such films?
Maybe the problem is with me but I haven never personally bought into this idea that the teenage lifestyle is about secretly trouble making while adults look the other way. I will congratulate Kidulthood though as those issues tie into one concept that is undoubtedly part of the teenage life and that is getting around the restrictions put on you by others. That is the real teenage life, having to deal with what feels like being trapped in a dome, you can't go where you want, you can't do what you want and you can not buy what you want because your age says otherwise. There is very little else as frustrating as feeling like you are on the same level as someone else but at the same time looked down upon. This sort of thing can leave a person incredibly frustrated and even angry and the worse part is it will never get better because there is no way we can ever possibly judge everyone's maturity on a case by case basis. Mental and physical maturity are two different things but you can not track mental maturity so the only manageable solution is to use age caps.

There is a long list of reasons why a young person might feel repressed or discriminated against, not all cases are the same, teenagers are unique as they are seen as a social group but it is one of the few social groups where every member is from a completely different place, from a different background, of a different sex, ethnicity, nationality, class etc. How do you define a group that is so diverse that it can contain people who are total opposites? The answer is you ignore it.

Images such as the above are used as the populist image of the British youth, dangerous, aggressive, intimidating and possibly living in poverty. When the 2012 London riots took place this image became the poster image for the riots, to the media the person in the image was the problem. This is a person many of us know, we may live next door to them, we may have gone to school with them, they might even be our children. That was the story the media was going for, they wanted people to buy into the story of a nation of dysfunctional young people who don't know how to act civilized. Images such as these is where our moral panics come from in relation to teenagers.

I strongly agree with a lot of the things said by Stanley Cohen in regards to moral panics over youth culture. They have indeed been demonized and "have occupied a constant position as folk devils in moral panics” (Cohen 2002, 2). Youth culture is such a big moral panic topic and when the focus isn't on condemning this youth culture it is instead on trying to find the things that are considered the cause of troubled youth. Following the James Bulger murder the tabloid media became obsessed with "video nasties" violent films that were not intended for children, many people blamed the film Child's Play (Holland, 1988), calling it the cause of the incident and the reason why Robert Thompson and John Venables murdered the 2 year old Bulger. This moral panic has been used again and again for different topics. Following the Bulger case video games such as Mortal Kombat (and Night Trap, hilariously) created such a large moral panic among politicians that it was made a law that video games had to be given age ratings. Video games are often blamed as the cause of violent incidents involving youth.

To be fair that is pretty violent.

I do agree that the 1990's was definitely the time period where the moral panic was at its peak. There are a lot of reasons for why this may be, one theory I personally have is that with the fall of the USSR the media needed a new fear to latch onto because bad news sells more paper than good news. Bad news is almost like a trend, if a story is proven to hook an audience then the newspapers will keep running the story until people stop following it. Pedophilia has become the moral panic that keeps on giving for the tabloids because it is undoubtedly the one area where no one will ever oppose them. Krinsky sums up the whole issue quite well.

"Needing no enhancement or mediation, the facts of child molestation can generate enough “genuine public horror” to bring about necessary policy changes without the additional impetus of moral panic. On the other hand, a moral panic enables reformers to turn an actual danger into a symbolic evil, which they can then exploit to distract the public and divert limited resources toward suppressing largely unrelated and less harmful sexual behaviors" (Krinsky, 5).

The moral panic issue could be best seen as an indicator of how the media reacts towards world affairs. Moral panics never creates the news the news creates the moral panics. If you preach enough eventually people will begin to listen, that is and always has been the way of the moral panic story.

References:
Young, J. (1971). The Drugtakers. 1st ed. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Krinsky, C. (2008) Moral Panics over Contemporary Children and Youth. Aldershot: Ashgate. Chapter 1.

Jan van Dijk - Networks: The Nervous System of Society

It is always important to be reminded that networks and webs are not exclusive to technology. Words can lose their meanings or be misunderstood over time. To many people the worldwide web is an outdated term reffing to the internet back in the 1990's when internet access was restricted to 56k modems that made use of phone lines when in truth the worldwide web has existed since man began exchanging information with other people.
"In the first worldwide web, human kind spread around the world in hunting and gathering tribes. The exchange of ideas and cultural expressions (song and dance), technologies (bows and arrows, the control of fire), and genes (exogamous marriages between members of different bands and tribes) swept across Africa, Asia, and Europe and into the Americas and Oceania." (van Dijk, 22).
The evolution of networking techniques over time has given use the worldwide web as we know it today, the web can only expand, we never truly cut off or stop using pieces of it. We still use all the methods of communication and networking that we had before the likes of the internet, we still communicate verbally, we have developed our methods of communication with imagery and signs, we have created postal networks and invented tools such as the television and telephone. All of these things are used to share information and contribute to the further growth of the worldwide web and global network.

I feel the global network as it is today has contributed a lot to the issue of imagined communities, I'm not saying it is to blame for the problem but it is a factor worth considering. With online social networking as it is today people can communicate with their friends and family no matter how far away they are from each other. This style of social networking has in a way inadvertently caused a fall in communication in local communities, you don't communicate with your local community but your own circle of family, friends and acquaintances. People no longer need to meet to remain socially active with each other, this isn't a new thing but the rise of the internet has played a large part in making thing kind of social lifestyle more popular. It is now very easy to be friends with people you have never met and may never actually meet in person.

Though a fairly well known concept I only really started to think about the Six Degrees of Separation concept when someone jokingly showed me the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game. For context, Kevin Bacon is a famous actor who has featured in so many film and television productions that it is joked that he can be linked to almost any famous person through the Six Degrees of Separation, there is even a website dedicated to listing them all (http://oracleofbacon.org/). The Kevin Bacon website is interesting because it gets the concept across in a way that almost any person can understand. The Six Degrees of Separation can also been seen in our own lives, I have had several experiences in the past where I have met a stranger and found they know me through one of my family or friends, it makes me think that if we look hard enough it should be possible to link any two people in the world no matter how distant they are from each other.

I do agree with the argument put forward by Manuel Castells (1996) that the concept of the information society is incorrect as all society is based on information. His concept of an "informational" society is much more accurate, our current contemporary society is one that values information highly, even trivial information has value. Just look at the data created in social media, that information is some of the most valuable in the world right now. Social media data is created for so little yet is is worth so much to a number of corporations for a large range of reasons. The likes of Facebook use the search data and viewing habits of their site users to find trends and help corporations advertise their products better, websites such as Google do a similar thing with the data gathered from the uses of their search engines. Even entertainment media is valued highly, though sites such as youtube it is possible to have large sums of money though advertising of your videos, videos such as the one below made the uploader a large sum of money when it went viral and was spread across the communication network of the internet.

As the global network continues to evolve people are continuing to find ways to make money out of it. From an economic perspective it is still hard to say whether or not this information based economy will be a good thing in the long turn. The likes of Jaron Lanier are very outspoken against the digital information economy and the damage it may or may not do in the future.[1]

I think a lot can be said about the way developments in networking has changed the behavior of human beings over time . I think the internet boom is one of the big if not the biggest factor that makes this current generation of young people differ from the last. Whether or not online networking has changed the way society interacts for better or for worse is a matter of personal opinion, on a normal day to day basis you can make arguments for and against the modern networked society. There are however cases to be made where we can say the development of network methods has benefited society for the better. When the London Terrorist Attacks took place on the 7th of July 2005 people used the internet and their mobile phones networks to spread the word about the attack and they did so at such a pace that the news had already broke out and become widespread before the media could prepare their own news reports. (Shirky, 2010) That is just an example of the power you can give a society when your networks become more developed, many of these information sharing methods didn't even exist 20 years previously.

The amount of progress made with networking over the last century has been incredible and it is more than anything else the reason why people often comment that the world feels smaller. Information can travel through our networks swiftly. For many the invention of text messaging is a necessity in their lives as it allows them to communicate with people without ever interfering anyone else. People should try and become more aware of these networks though because as things are they are clearly taken for granted by people who don't know or care for the progress and prominence of networks.

References:
Shirky, Clay, Cognitive Surplus, Penguin, New York, 2010.
Van Dijk, J. (2006) The Network Society. London: Sage. Introduction. Chapter 2.
Jaron Lanier: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaron_lanier_the_internet_destroyed_the_middle_class/[1]

Pierre Lévy - Interactivity

Though an incredibly short and brief reading Pierre Lévy's piece on interactivity gives the reader a lot to take in, I personally read through it three times in a row and only now do I feel confident enough to write about it.

As Lévy wrote there are various forms of interactivity and in many cases people have confused or made a mistake in regards to what the term interactivity actually means.  I myself have always had my own basic definition of interactivity, there are indeed different ways to define interactivity depending on context. Interacting with an object by picking it up is completely different to interacting with a person by talking to them. One is a one way interaction through touch and the other is a responsive interaction through speech and sound. Lévy  simply defines interactivity as "the active participation of the beneficiary of an information transition." (Lévy, 226). Lévy wasn't wrong when he said his approach to the concept was problematic, at first it seems like he is over complicating the subject for no good reason but when read a second and even a third time I began to catch on to what he was saying. Interactivity and participation are split up into several different categories, one example of interactivity is the one way participation of the television and the television user. The television viewer has full access to the televisions features (channel switching, volume control etc) and the interactivity comes almost entirely from the viewer, not just does the viewer have full access to the televisions features but they can, as Lévy pointed out, make changes to the function of the television set. With simple additions we can add to our participation with the television even if the television can not participate itself. Participating with technological devices is unique because of how we are able to keep adding functions to the devices and change the behavior of them. We now have devices such as smart televisions that in many ways act very much like a computer or tablet device, obviously such things had not yet come around when Lévy wrote this piece but it is still in line his belief that digitization can enhance "opportunities for reappropriating and personalizing the message" (Lévy, 227). Some of the interactive features he envisioned such as choice of camera and the choice of commentators now exists for live events.

Lévy describes the telephone as "the paragon of an interactive medium" (Lévy, 227) but I'm not sure if I am in full agreement about that statement. The telephone is a good example of an interactive medium but I'm not sure if it can be regarded as the perfect example. I'm not referring to what the telephone doesn't have, it's weakness is not due to the lack of visionary feedback, the issue with the telephone (and most other forums of interactive communication media for that matter) is noise. Noise is the biggest flaw in the interactive model of the telephone. It is because of noise that people have to charge their dialect when using a telephone. Though not a major issue for land-line phone users mobile phone users have to deal with noise related issues often, this can range from a break in communication due to a poor phone signal or sound interference from the environment (wind, rain etc). The telephone is one of the best examples of interactive medium but I do not believe it is the paragon of an interactive medium.

The case of networked video games is also flawed but not because of weaknesses in the technology (it shares some of the same issues as the telephone admittedly) but because of the culture surrounding networked video games. For the most part networked video games have become incredibly impersonal and in some cases anti-social affairs. Then again Lévy is clearly talking about the idea of virtual reality games and not the type of games we have today. Regardless when applied to typical video games the original example only applies when playing games with friends. Most forms of network play though set you up to play with strangers. There are a list of issues associated with playing against strangers including anti-social behavior, discrimination, lack of communication, verbal abuse etc.
This problem is not exclusive to that one medium obviously, but with network communications the offender has a few factors working in their favour such as anonymity and the fact that tracking down such a person is unreasonable.

We can see that Lévy has taken a mathematical approach to this subject if we look at his table of interactivity and the page prior to it we can see that he has put together a system displaying the major groups of interactivity and when they would apply. If anything the table is a good quick reference guide when identifying the different communication systems.

In summary I feel like this topic could have possibly done with more information, it feels very much like it has only touched the service in regards to interactivity, then again interactivity is covered quite heavily in the Media Studies Digital Communication module so I should probably do some research in that area if I want to know more.

References:
Levy, P. (2001 [2011]) ‘Interactivity’ in The New Media and Technocultures Reader. Oxon: Routledge. Pp. 226-229.

Andrew McStay - Consumer Society and Advertising

I will agree that it is interesting how money spent on advertising has been increasing despite the recession in the global economy. With the recession causing people to have less money to spend you would think advertisers would have to cut down or think twice about how much they spend on advertising. I think what is currently happening with advertising is similar to the current state of technology.

With technology we have reached the point where strides are being made in technology research and electronic devices are becoming better, faster and more powerful all of the time. I'm not saying that we are on the verge of a technological singularity but I do think this trend of constantly making everything better plays a big reason as to why advertising costs have increased. People have less money but we have competing markets, not just in technology but in all areas, food, clothing, entertainment etc, it could be more than anything that the aim of advertising is no longer to expand the brand but to make the brand the only brand that matters.

In many ways this aggressive advertising spend isn't just a result of new advertising platforms such as the internet but a result of trying to dominate chosen markets. I believe this is why big budget advertising exists, it's about becoming the chosen brand and gaining a large amount of power over other business as you attempt to gain a monopoly over the market.

On paper this isn't how things have gone down, the recession did lead to the demise of several large businesses but this was not a case of lost customers, for many corporations the issues were internal. Despite the bad economic climate people were still ready and willing to spend (even if they couldn't afford it). In a recession affected consumer society it is possible to convince consumers to spend of the basis that their purchases could contribute to the recovery in the economy even though the people were never to blame for the economic downfall in the first place.

What I find interesting here is the different mentalities between people in nations such as the United Kingdom and people in a nation such as Poland (McStay, 345). In the former the sales of luxury items are seen as a key component in a healthy economy and it is therefore necessary that people continue to buy goods in order to keep a healthy economic growth, in other words, not spending money is seen as a negative. In nations such as Poland however luxuries are just that. When you put it in perspective maybe they are in the right? Don't spend money on luxury unless you have to. But then again isn't availability of luxury items for the mass population considered part of what makes a nation a first world nation? Is it not the capitalist culture that makes people continuously buy ever improving tech?

Online advertising has gained a larger presence over the last 5 years but I do not think internet advertising has reached its full potential yet, if anything online advertising such as videos and banners are treated as annoyances more than anything (hence why people install software such as Adblock). Viral marketing is much more successful in making use of the Internets potential as an advertising platform but even then the more cynical of us are likely to see past the participatory reward aspect of viral marketing and class it as yet another attempt by the big corporations to extort the talents of people for free.

Either way I think that we definitely live in a consumer culture that encourages aspiration, not the "if I work hard I'll fulfill my dreams" kind of aspiration but the "if I do good at work I'll be able to buy a new television" aspiration. The first can be thought of as a positive aspiration because the person is aspiring to be something better while the latter sees the person aspire to have better things. The problem with the second type of aspiration is that it encourages the use of skinner box (operant conditioning) techniques in the work place. Skinner box techniques make up part of the gamification of modern day work. In the case of the skinner box we have created a consumer society that is designed to keep you "playing" for small rewards, these rewards are designed to keep you coming back for more. Eventually a person will become so inbred to this system of work for rewards that when they come into any large amount of income they will feel entitled to spend it on a bigger award. This is only one example of how the modern consumer society is able to make money from people on a regular basis. Again this doesn't just apply to objects and tech this can also apply to our every day needs. This sknnier box work and reward cycle can apply to our food buying habits, even food is an object of aspiration, you could buy the cheap brand or you can work just a little bit harder and buy the more costly food. In short the entire system is a trap, it's all about having what the next person already has. We don't completely decide what it is we want, instead we are dictated towards our choices though factors such as income and popularity.

The box about the false intimacy seen in advertising (McStay, 344) is something that has often played on my mind int he past. How is it that we, the consumers, have in many ways come to feel like we have an almost friend-like relationship with the corporations, in some cases it even begins to feel like we owe them. The fake friend intimacy is one of the most effective forms of advertising because they make consumers feel like they matter. With the Dove real women adverts one of the messages being sent to viewers was that this advertisement would have never been possible without the support of the common people who buy dove soaps. One recent example that comes to mind is the Playstation 4 "For The Players Since 1995" advertisement. This advert worked on nostalgia and one of the main messages it was sending out to the viewer was that these nostalgic moments and good memories could have never existed without the people who bought and played Playstation systems. It's almost like the advertisement is saying "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". These type of advertisements can play with just how fickle people actually are, 5 years ago the goodwill was not with the Playstation brand but with the competing Xbox brand. The role reversal has been caused by one brand going in a direction that has inadvertently caused the business/consumer relationship to be soured while the other has made movements to strengthen the business/consumer relationship.

I suppose that is the way competing markets function, when you have two factions competing against each other it is inevitable that each will take turns gaining the other hand from each other as people continue to change their minds over what is and isn't the popular choice.

In summary I agree with many of the points made in the reading. I feel that the consumer society has been forced upon us, not as a aggressive force but through the power of suggestion. The more you surround yourself with people who have been swayed by the consumer society the more likely you are yourself to conform to the consumer model of thinking.

References:
McStay, A. (2009) “Consumer Society and Advertising,” in Long, P.; Wall, T; Bakir, V. & McStay, A. (2009/2012). Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context. London: Pearson Education.

Benedict Anderson - Imagined Communities

Reading pieces like this only further remind me of the importance of studying Marxism and the importance of Marxism in media and cultural studies. I fully agree with the concept of imagined communities, the nations that make up the United Kingdom are very much imagined communities. I myself lived in the same town for 20 years yet I have only ever known a tiny fraction of the people who occupy that town. If anything in the current digital age the imagined community applies even more so, many people I consider friends or know well enough to have personal conversations with don't even live in the same nation as me. If anything imagined communities could be most easily defined as the idea of living together with strangers. You may share your country with millions of people but nearly all of them are strangers to you, if anything does link persons it is certainly not their nationality.

I think imagined communities apply more than anything to people living in their own nation. On the other hand people from the same nation who are living in a foreign land may feel more inclined to get to know each other but that is less to do with nationality and more to do with people sharing things in common, which is often the basis for almost every kind of relationship.

Anderson talks in depth about the formation of wars involving communist nations. Communism is very much founded on the idea of the imagined community, in the Soviet Union the public were made to believe that everything they did was for the benefit of the people, never mind the fact that most people were complete strangers to each other. In that case these citizens of the Soviet Union were each persons imaginary friend, by working you were helping them and in return they would work and help you.

The imagined communities concept makes me think of how my own outlook at life is similar, it is very much built up on the idea that if you work hard it will benefit or help others somehow. Imagined communities is very much the idea of interacting with hypothetical people, people who are just like you and care about the same ideals as you and support your nation as much as you do. As long as we are invited to buy into the idea of national pride and being together as a nation the imagined community shall live on, for better or for worse.

References:
Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined Communities (London: Verso). Chapter 1.

John Harris - Cool Cymru, rugby union and an imagined community

For me this article was very easy to relate to and it summed up a lot of my feelings on this idea of Welsh nationalism. I feel like Wales as a nation has something of a false identity and I think it has a lot to do with the divide spoken about in the reading.

"Wales is often described as a nation where a North/South divide categorises rugby as being the game of the South. Through its close proximity to large English cities such as Liverpool and Manchester many towns of North Wales are places where football is by far the most popular sport." (Harris, 155)

This is very much my experience having lived in North Wales all my life. Not just is football the most popular sport but there is also a large population of people who are from, or have family originating from Liverpool and Manchester. I myself have a parent who was born in Liverpool. To add to this the most commonly spoken language is English with very few people being fluent Welsh speakers.

Wales is seldom given the national pride treatment and I think this has a lot to do with the concept of imagined communities (Anderson, 1983). It isn't just Wales who are guilty but unlike England and Scotland there are far fewer events that revolve around celebrating the nation and it's history, anything that is celebrated as British nationalism in Wales is celebrated as English nationalism in England. Wales truly is in the shadow of England and the only wide spread and commonly shared source of national price comes from sports. With sports you do not need history nor do you need a reason to begrudge the opposing team, it is simply a case of being able to brag that you are superior because of the nation you identify with.

Welsh football is an interesting topic to study when focusing on national identity and imagined communities. Welsh rugby fans are often criticised for only caring about Wales when there is a game on because by winning the people of Wales are given a reason to feel good about themselves. Welsh football on the other hand is different, the Welsh national team have not qualified for a major tournament in nearly 40 years (the 1976 European Championship Finals was their last) and the Welsh Football League is one of the lowest ranked football leagues in Europe and is considered by many to be below the Scottish top division (Premiership) and below the 4th division of English football (League 2). With Welsh football being how it is the national team is comprised almost entirely of players who play in another nations football league. With all that considered in what regard do we hold the people who support Welsh football? Surely those are the true nationalists as they are willing to support their country in a sport no matter how bad things get?

Football has recently seen a Welsh pride movement thanks to the current standings of Swansea City and Cardiff City, two Welsh football teams that won promotion to the English Premier League. Swansea City's League Cup victory was suppose to be viewed as a triumph for Welsh football, not in North Wales, people here support mostly English teams that are competing with Swansea. This upraising of the Welsh football teams and the renaming of the English Premier League to the British Premier League does make one ask, has Wales really gained significance? Have we just continued to accept Britannia and the concept of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as one united nation? Certainly Welsh football does not compare to the achievements of the Scottish club game where the likes of Glasgow Celtic, Glasgow Rangers and Aberdeen have proved themselves capable of being equals to the most highly regarded teams in European football.

Moving on from football rugby has in many ways become an example of Wales taking a stereotype and embracing it and turning it into a positive part of the Welsh culture. For better or for worse rugby is treated as a traditional part of the Welsh lifestyle. Welsh Rugby has a large importance not just on a cultural level but a political level because it is through the likes of Rugby that politicians make a case for Wales having a culture and a sense of national pride.
"Devolution was passed by the narrowest of majorities where just over half of the population even bothered to vote.The national assembly has, arguably, made little difference to Welsh society although its symbolic value as a sign of greater independence may be more significant." (Harris, 158).
With no where else to turn to for support it seems like rugby has become be all and end all for proof of nationalist pride and that is incredibly concerning because it means if Welsh rugby was to decline significantly it would damage the imagined community that has been created through Welsh rugby.

In regards to Wales in media I never felt that the likes of music groups such as The Stereophonics had a distinctively Welsh feel to them, like many things it seems less like a product of Welsh culture and more a case of being something that happened to come from Wales. Many BBC television productions are filmed in Wales but they are not considered Welsh television. This is what I mean when I said Wales has a false identity. Besides the language what is there really that makes it unique to somewhere like England? The people of Wales can make a case for their mines and their rugby and their Welsh lamb all they want but besides the stereotypes what is the culture of Wales?

This reading has got me asking questions about the idea of what it means to identify with a nationality and imagined communities as a concept. Maybe I am being harsh on Wales but I've never felt like there was a significant cultural difference between most Welsh towns/cities and the majority of English towns and cities.

References:
Harris, J. (2007) ‘Cool Cymru, Rugby Union and an Imagined Community’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, (27)3/4: 151-162.
Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined Communities (London: Verso). Chapter 1.

Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer - The Culture Industry

I found there to be little to no room for optimism in Adorno and Horkneimer's thoughts on Culture Industry. Not a single sheet of paper was put to waste as the pair proposed over the 24 pages what was a harsh critique and dystopian viewpoint of the world. In many ways the piece feels like an attack on everything we have be bought up to know and accept, it is like they are telling us we are being deceived and lied to and that the accepted norm is a state of being that only benefits a select group of people. The piece makes me think of the concept of dropping out of society and attempts made by people to drop out. In film the idea of dropping out of the conventional society has been experimented with in films such as The Idiots (von Trier, 1998). However I doubt that is the kind of thing Adorno and Horkneimer are encouraging, instead they are merely condemning how contemporary culture has been constructed in a way that shuns anyone who does not conform to the expected standard.

In constructing their argument Adorno and Horkneimer point at almost anything you can imagine as a piece of evidence, whether it be the poor planning of housing and building placement in major cities (and the later decay of said buildings when new ones appear) or the way in which we interact with our media now.

They have a point, in one way or another everything is uniformed, especially in media, film, radio, magazines etc, all these media products tend to share characteristics. Everything is the same, the only difference is content. Adorno and Horkneimer are basically calling out everyone and everything as fakes, as being false, they accuse popular culture of only pretending to be art (Adorno and Horkneimer, 1). In many ways their attitude towards how media became a business industry makes me think of a reading by Malcolm Barnard that looks at how people have repeatedly tried and failed in studying media and sociology as if it were a natural science. [1]
In many ways Adorno and Horkneimer are also attacking the design by committee media culture we have today. How can there be an artistry in the likes of film if the vision of the director or original screenplay writer is interfered with by other people they work with?

"The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3). Corporations decide what we are allowed to view on television, in cinemas, on DVD and so on. The media we have to choose from were all created by or distributed by people who had the power to decide what is shown. You could argue that we are in a situation where we are letting these higher powers decide what we want and not the other way around. This doesn't just apply to media, everything we can obtain was created or distributed by someone else. Even if a man grows his own food he still has to buy the seeds from somewhere.
The only big consolation prize in all of this is that people have the power to create their own works if they are willing to dedicate themselves, even if higher powers still control how we distribute what we make we still have some form of creative freedom. If there is one huge positive in the online boom it is it has given us this freedom to create and share, at least for now anyway.

"As soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be rewarded, punished, or forgotten" (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3). Can originality really be found in our modern day media? No matter what story you try to tell all the possible ending scenarios will have already been guessed by the crowd, therefore in the creative culture industry it isn't about finding who has the most original idea but who has the most uncommon idea. If a piece of media shocks or surprises you it is because the direction chosen was the one that was not commonly predicted by the crowd.  "Art for the masses has destroyed the dream" (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3) but is the dream really dead or is our idea of the dream now just working under the people at the top? Does a major musician or actor live the dream or are they living what we are told is the dream, i.e. working just below those in power? I suppose comparing the two is like comparing the rich to the wealthy.
Speaking of originality one story that always fascinated me was the story of the late 1960's band The Shaggs. The Shaggs was a rock band that was formed when the father of the band members (they were sisters) believed in a premonition his mother had stating that his daughters would form a popular music group. The most interesting aspect of The Shaggs was the music, listening to a song by The Shaggs one could get the impression that the band had no awareness or notions of common music conventions. The music of The Shaggs often gains a polarized reaction, some people believe it to be terrible while others see an artistry in it.

Philosophy of the world - The Shaggs (1969)

If there is one aspect of the piece I completely disagree with it is that we are living a fascist like state. That all those who do not conform must suffer and be excluded from society. I do not believe that is the case and though I can respect this argument I do not think society is under that kind of ironclad grip. As long as people are not being made to purposely suffer en masse we are not living in a fascist state. It is true that people who do not conform and fit in often become outcasts and it is true these people have been villainized for years and that is a flaw in society we have to address.I do think some of the issues tackled by Adorno and Horkneimer have been addressed at least on a small scale. The web communities and global village have bought about new kinds of sub-cultures many and have given many platforms for the non-conforming people to express themselves.

Maybe I'm missing the point Adorno and Horkneimer are trying to make here and I need to look at things differently. Maybe I am just a sheep who accepts what is given to us as art. I always thought myself as being a bit cynical when it comes to what the culture industry shoves in our faces, instead having a preference to what I feel has value as oppose to what we are told and made to believe has value. Adorno's and Horkneimer's work is definitely something I need to come back to in the future because I feel there are many things I can learn from their work.

References:

1: dorno, T.W. and Horkheimer, M. (1979) The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. London: Verso, pp. 120-124.

2.Barnard, M. 2001. Approaches to understanding visual culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. [1]