- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

a call to activisim from Robert McChesney
by Ed Lamoureux 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

a note from McChesney. I'm using his book in a 400-level multimedia course I'm teaching; he's doing a guest teleconference with us. I don't consider the message spam . . . though as a call to specific action over a specific cause, it might be taken as boarderline by some of the kind folks on this list. I hope that you don't find the intrusion . . . well ... intrusive. thanks Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert McChesney <info(a)mediareform.net> > Date: February 11, 2004 11:44:18 AM CST > To: info(a)mediareform.net > Subject: Tell Congress to stop what's really indecent about the media: > consolidation. > Reply-To: rmcchesney(a)mediareform.net > > Congress is having high-profile hearings to debate the crisis in > American media. > > Media concentration? Nope -- indecency. > > Spurred on by Janet Jackson's Super Bowl antics, Congress has decided > to try to address the issue of television's 'race to the bottom.' > Their answer? Increasing token fines on broadcasters that push the > envelope with explicit content. > > We need your help to get Congress to focus on what's truly obscene: > Big Media getting any bigger. > > The Super Bowl half-time show is just the latest example of synergy > gone wild -- CBS (which aired the game) and MTV (which produced the > half-time show) are corporate cousins in the Viacom media empire. And > last summer, the FCC passed rules that will allow media giants like > Viacom to get even bigger, narrowing the range of debate and stifling > minority and independent voices. It has to stop. Members of Congress > are focused on the media today--we've got to tell them what really > matters to us. > > We need you to call your representative in Congress. Urge him or her > to co-sponsor House Joint Resolution 72, the resolution of disapproval > that would roll back the new FCC rules. We need you to tell them that > the real solution to the problems of our media has to address the root > cause: the growing concentration of media ownership. > > Click here for your representative's information and detailed > instructions: http://www.mediareform.net/callcongress.php > > Forward this to everyone you know who cares about fostering a truly > democratic media. > > ---------------- > Last summer, the Federal Communications Commission passed rules that > would allow media giants like Viacom to get even bigger, not only > speeding along the 'race to the bottom' but narrowing the range of > debate, focusing on celebrity over policy, reducing elections to horse > races, stifling minority viewpoints, and barraging us with > advertising. > > Millions of Americans last year told Congress and the FCC that we're > asking for more trouble if we allow the FCC's relaxation of media > ownership limits to stand. That decision allows a single company to > buy multiple TV stations, eight radio stations, the biggest newspaper, > and the cable system in a given community. Media concentration has led > to less children's programming, cuts in newsroom staff, a decline in > minority-owned media, and the stifling of independent voices. > > Congress tried and failed to solve this problem in 2003. We cannot > allow them to ignore the issue in 2004. It's up to us to get our > representatives to commit to truly democratic policies--like reversing > the FCC's media ownership decision. > > Right now is a critical moment. Take 3 minutes and make a difference. > > Sincerely, > > The Free Press Team > > P.S.: While most of the action today seems to be taking place in > Washington, the real story is actually unfolding in Philadelphia. > There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear oral > arguments today regarding the new FCC rules. For the most recent > information regarding this groundbreaking case, visit > http://www.mediareform.net/media/philadelphia.php . > > P.P.S.: Stay up to date on news relating to media reform with our free > daily headline service. Sign up at > http://www.mediareform.net/news/deliveries.php . Give it a try; both > subscribing and unsubscribing are easy. > > ------------- > To discontinue receiving these messages, go to > http://www.mediareform.net/remove.php . > > > Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378

1 0

weblog papers
by Thomas N. Burg 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

Dear AOIR members and bloggers, Lisbeth Klastrup collected some academic papers and articles on weblogs (http://www.klastrup.dk/archive/2004_02_01_archive.html#107634409840894819) I thought it would be helpful to set up a wikipage where everybody could add relevant papers. So please add you papers and/or those you know of here http://wiki.randgaenge.net/pmwiki.php/Weblog/HomePage Please go to Papers and edit there. Thanks Thomas ----------------------------------------- Thomas N. Burg Center for New Media Danube University Krems http://randgaenge.net http://wiki.randgaenge.net/ http://blogtalk.net http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/znm

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space)
by Kendall, Lori 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

Woo! I greatly enjoyed Don Slater's post on this issue and particularly the rant about ethnography. (No big surprise to anyone who knows me, I'm sure!) Lori ________________________________________ Lori Kendall Assistant Professor of Sociology Purchase College-SUNY lori.kendall(a)purchase.edu

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space)
by Slater,D 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

Hello thread - This discussion seems to be getting increasingly bizarre (am I the only one?). It started with the issue of internet as a 'space' and then entered into 'numbers' (=real data??!!) versus qualitative waffle, and even Arts/Humanities versus SCIENCE - can we really be debating, in 2004, whether social science should be a positive science based on physics (more '??!!'s) For what its worth, you could argue that the second - science - issue was contained in the strange way the first one was posed: someone actually talked about whether we 'believe' in 'cyberspace', in the sense of - 'do we believe that cyberspace exists?' Well, as a completely inumerate, waffly ethnographer I feel it is my responsibility as a 'scientist' not to *believe* in anything whatsoever, in this sense. I want to find out what people actually think, do and say. And I've found it very interesting over the past few years of doing ICT ethnographies in the Caribbean, South Asia and now Ghana to discover that people use very diverse spatial metaphors to understand and structure their use of new comms technologies. Sometimes it ends up looking a bit like 'cyberspace' as we normally define it; sometimes they treat internet facilities as a space but describe it in very different ways (or not spatially at all); sometimes both spatiality and cyberspace seem utterly irrelevant to understand what is going on, or in the users' udnerstandings. They also use incredibly different spatial metaphors and scales (eg, in Trinidad, radio is incredibly local, relates to what people are doing at this moment, on that street corner; whereas much internet use is conceptualised at a global level, but then again is not always used to be part of a global space - more often to be in the same space as one's daughter or mother who lives away; in Ghana, most of the internet use we are observing is split between somewhat cyberspacey online chat with unknown others; but almost all the rest seems to be one amongst many means of maintinaing extended family relations and operations, such as managing flows of remittances from the North, or being an agent for a Northern manufacturer - its simply a quicker way of doing what they always did, within social networks that owe very little to 'cyberspace'. All I'm saying is that I don't even want to ask the question, 'is there a cyberspace?' although spatiality is a crucial and fascinating issue. It's just the wrong way of approaching it. I'd also say that asking about spatiality and geo-positiongings does lead one directly to epistemological, ontological, historical, etc, etc questions - the big stuff. But it's very different if you start from people's diverse experiences or from generic and global concepts of 'cyberspace' (which completely ignore spatiality actually in that they claim a new kind of space as a technological property fo the medium itself - question closed). If you start from experiences - personal and historical - then, like any good anthropologist, you are asking about local concepts and practices of things like space, identity, family, network, community, body, etc and seeing how they and new technologies co-configure each other. And you find it's different everywhere, in important ways (and you can then, for one thing, really see if there are any convergences which might have something to do with global media technologies). On the other hand, if you start from a 'belief' (or a polemical refutation) of 'cyberspace', the degenerate offspring of 1990s cyberbabble!, then you are starting from an abstract set of premises and ensuing issues/agenda that derives from the millenial obsessions of a few northern strands of avante garde theory and practice, such as poststructuralism, postmodernism, cyberpunk literature, and afew net activists, etc, etc, This is hardly a good way to understand what is going on in different places, and what different things ICTs can be for different people. And frankly it seems another kind of imperialism, a projection of northern issues and understandings onto the technology and via that onto everyone else. You have only to see some of the hoops that this makes southern academics and intellectuals jump through if they have to keep up with a completely alien northern obsession with disembodied selves and loss of identity. The only valid answer I can find to the question of 'cyberspace' (and it is unabashedly empiricist) is 'go and take a bloody look'. Of course, 'taking a look' does not mean looking through the spectacles of a quantitative survey, or tracking traffic. I do actually find numbers quite useful, but I've never found that they make any sense at all outside of an ethnographic context - ie, having a framework in which both to generate numbers meaningfully and to interpret them meaningfully. I'm in Ghana as part of a four country comparative study (the others are Jamaica, India and South Africa). My colleagues and I have found that in order to standardize a few lines of questioning for meaningful comparison between countries we have to ask quite *different* questions in each place, and we can only see this because of the ethnographjic base we already have. Eg, relating internet use to poverty is very different in Ghanaian formally extended kinship networks and lineage decents than in Jamaican single parent families with multiple baby fathers - it's only by knowing the different familial patterns of resources and obligations that you can even begin to think how to ask about 'monthly household income'. So what point would there be in asking a standardized survey question aboiut 'household income'. Same goes for Internet or mobile phone use, which is structured differently in all four places. Similarly, with interpretation of numbers: the stats tell me that there are about 700,000 mobile phone accounts in Ghana, yet everyone - and I mean everyone - uses mobiles in one way or another. I can only square this circle by understanding patterns of shared use, the structure of communications kiosks and so on. Similar I'm told by the World Bank that there are about 10,000 ISP accounts in Ghana, but even the poorest areas have numerous cafes, which are filled to overflowing, and everyone I've met so far can tell me their email address. And don't tell me we just need better numbers - this is an interpretative issue about what you are looking for and at, and whether you are senstivite and open to local uses and understandings of technology. What about the Accra parents (similar to cases in Trinidad) who have never seen a computer in their lives, are illiterate and impoverished, but send and receive emails several times a week from their elder son in London, the conduit being their second son who visits cybercafes on an almost daily basis. I don't think that EITHER 'cyberspace' or 'number-crunching' offer anything at all in this (vitally important) instance. I'll let you know how general this is as we continue carrying out more interviews, long term family ethnographies and hanging around cafes. Knowing the exact number of these instances, even if any survey known to science could get at it, is not very interesting to me; knowing whether email has entered into people's communications repertoires in thjese kinds of ways is. If you start with the northern, universalist, techno determinist so-90s presumption of cyberspace as the basis for a research agenda, then either you keep on waffling and asking the wrong questions, questions that don't emerge from engagement with actual practices and experiences; or I suppose you start demanding numbers that will prove things one way or another. If you start with numbers and surveys you just impose another set of universal assumptions across sites, rather than framing or interpreting your questions in location-specific ways. It might get boring to people to keep banging on about ethnography, but it seems to me the only way of subsuming both concepts and numbers within a meaningful engagement with the concrete diversity of social constructions of technology and people. Sorry for the rant, and for this plague on both houses conclusion, but this thread really got to me. Don Slater _______________________________________________ Don Slater Reader in Sociology, London School of Economics Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Tel: +44 (020) 7849 4653 Fax: +44 (020) 7955 7405 http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/slater ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: elijah wright [mailto:elw@stderr.org] Sent: 09 February 2004 13:36 To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space) Eero, i know you're an aussie, and that your discourse conventions are a bit different than they are stateside, but you're coming across in this message as pretty rude. > study will turn more towards real number crunching, rather than > worrying about "cyberspace" and "cyber communities". rebellions that do not work through an understanding of what their precursors were inevitably seem to fail. several people appear to be engaged in this discussion with you, currently. and, by the way, there are plenty of people here who crunch the numbers through one set of methods or another. > I think the new generation of students will force change as people who > are less tolerant of "cyberisms" graduate and influence academia. I > also think this new wave of Internet Studies scholars will drive the > area into a more commercially focussed future as they understand the > opportunities to be gained by excelling in the research of real data. be aware that your 'new generation of students' is a loose agglomeration that doesn't even share common research methods, much less opinions about abstract concepts. second: 'scholarship' and 'commercially focused' have traditionally been diametrically opposed. with reason. and could you define real data, please - either you're making a 'slap' at the rest of the community, or you've gotten your head stuck somewhere unmentionable... > However...the internet as we know it may not last more than another > decade, it will be replaced by something else, but I imagine that > whatever replaces it will still be a communications tool. this is a bluesky argument. people have been arguing that the 'net is a passing fad since sometime in the mid-1980s. (!!!) > So perhaps rather than concentrating on the "internet" part of this > equation, all the little bits that are floating around in the academic > world in related areas should pull themselves into one universal > school of communications study so that they not only allow for greater > diversity of study but also protect their own academic industry from > the inevitable technological change. AoIR is sort of a public face for the 'invisible college' of people interested in internet-related research. > division and I would see this evolving in a more global sense through > an online Division rather than being an individual battle for status > at every single university. How this would be put together in flesh > and blood terms I leave to the geniuses of organisation. ... in other words, "i don't really understand how universities around the world work, so i will put out this grand idea and let someone else figure out how to implement it"? jesus. > Thus, when the internet dies and is replaced by something else there > is still a home for those who want to study the new emerging > technology. there are list-folk who're on their third and fourth 'careers' - people always find something useful to do with themselves as their interests change or evolve. :) elijah _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

2 1

key noters
by Greg Elmer 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

Kate, Great news! When you get the talk titles can you circulate them so that AoIR-types can network and promote these events (I'm assuming they are open to the public?). Greg Elmer >I'm also really pleased to announce that keynote speakers Sara Kiesler >and Nina Wakeford have accepted the invitation to speak at the >conference. > >Nina Wakeford is the Director of INCITE at the University of Surrey. Her >past research has included ethnographic work in the UK and the USA on >computing and internet culture, including studies of cybercafes, online >discussion groups and new media start-up companies. As well as studies of= > >technology she is interested in the sociology of sexuality, in particular= > >the use of queer theory, and the potential intersections between such >critical cultural theory, innovative ethnography and design practice. She= > >has undertaken collaborative projects with companies including British >Telecom, Fuji Xerox, Intel and Sapient. >(Quoted from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/incite/wireninawakefordbio.htm) > >More info here: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/nina_wakeford.htm > > >Professor Sara Kiesler=B9s current projects include: > >HomeNet: a study with PI, Bob Kraut, and others of the personal and >social effects of household technology and the Internet on individuals >and families. (http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu) This project has spun off= > >to a related project : Participation in Online Communities. New webpage >to come soon. > >Multidisciplinary collaboration: Studies under an NSF KDI grant with my >co-PIs Suzie Weisband and Pamela Hinds of distributed collaborations in >science, business, and education. (http://www.multi-collab.org/ ). This >project has spun off to other new projects: NSF ITR Large-scale >collaboration; NSF DST Multiple Task Trajectories. New webpages to come >soon. > >The Project on People and Robots: an ITR in human-robot interaction and >design with co-PIs Pamela Hinds, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sebastian Thrun. >(http://www.peopleandrobots.org) > >Quoted from: http://research.nursebot.cs.cmu.edu/Sara/index.html > > >Further keynote speakers still to be confirmed. > >All the best > >Dr. Kate O'Riordan >Lecturer in Continuing Education (Media Studies) > >Centre for Continuing Education >Sussex Institute >Essex House >University of Sussex >Falmer >Brighton >BN1 9QQ > >Tel: 01273 877774 >Email: k.s.o-riordan(a)sussex.ac.uk >Web: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/qlff7 -- Greg Elmer Associate Professor Department of Communication Florida State University 356 Diffenbaugh Tallahassee, FL 32303 850.645.4692 (tel.) Co-Editor Space and Culture: An International Journal of Social Spaces http://www.carleton.ca/space/ ________________________________________________________________________________

1 0

Directory of representatives' websites: UK and Australia
by Wainer Lusoli 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

Apologies for cross-posting ----------------------------------------- Hallo - We have just compiled a directory of UK and Australian representatives' websites. The directory is updated every three months, and a summary table allows to track and compare Parliaments' online 'performance'. http://www.esri.salford.ac.uk/ESRCResearchproject/assemblies.html The tracking exercise is part of a wider project on the Internet and representation (www.ipop.org.uk) Hope it help, Best regards, Wainer -------------------------- Wainer Lusoli Research Fellow @ ESRI University of Salford http://www.ipop.org.uk w.lusoli(a)salford.ac.uk +44 (0)161 2955654 --------------------------

1 0

Re: [Air-l] 2004 Conference - Keynote update
by K.S.O-Riordan＠sussex.ac.uk 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

I'm also really pleased to announce that keynote speakers Sara Kiesler and Nina Wakeford have accepted the invitation to speak at the conference. Nina Wakeford is the Director of INCITE at the University of Surrey. Her past research has included ethnographic work in the UK and the USA on computing and internet culture, including studies of cybercafes, online discussion groups and new media start-up companies. As well as studies of technology she is interested in the sociology of sexuality, in particular the use of queer theory, and the potential intersections between such critical cultural theory, innovative ethnography and design practice. She has undertaken collaborative projects with companies including British Telecom, Fuji Xerox, Intel and Sapient. (Quoted from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/incite/wireninawakefordbio.htm) More info here: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/nina_wakeford.htm Professor Sara Kiesler¹s current projects include: HomeNet: a study with PI, Bob Kraut, and others of the personal and social effects of household technology and the Internet on individuals and families. (http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu) This project has spun off to a related project : Participation in Online Communities. New webpage to come soon. Multidisciplinary collaboration: Studies under an NSF KDI grant with my co-PIs Suzie Weisband and Pamela Hinds of distributed collaborations in science, business, and education. (http://www.multi-collab.org/ ). This project has spun off to other new projects: NSF ITR Large-scale collaboration; NSF DST Multiple Task Trajectories. New webpages to come soon. The Project on People and Robots: an ITR in human-robot interaction and design with co-PIs Pamela Hinds, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sebastian Thrun. (http://www.peopleandrobots.org) Quoted from: http://research.nursebot.cs.cmu.edu/Sara/index.html Further keynote speakers still to be confirmed. All the best Dr. Kate O'Riordan Lecturer in Continuing Education (Media Studies) Centre for Continuing Education Sussex Institute Essex House University of Sussex Falmer Brighton BN1 9QQ Tel: 01273 877774 Email: k.s.o-riordan(a)sussex.ac.uk Web: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/qlff7 --

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space/reply to Elijah)
by Jonathan Marshall 11 Feb '04

11 Feb '04

Eero Tarik <et(a)tarik.com.au>writes: > it is my goal to produce relevant results in the field of Internet > Research, without conceptualising/ hallucinating, without using geek > speak, but producing results that are efficient, able to be understood > by every English speaking person on the planet and published widely by > the media for the benefit of the public - and my results will be > relevant. This all sounds wonderful Eero: but even i might hope that my writings will prove interesting and relevents to a large body of people :) And I suspect that most people on this list have a vague inclination in that direction. It would be more interesting to tell people what you plan to do, or what kind of research you think would be relevant, or to give some taste of the kind of results you might want to generate. After all people might be interested. You don't have to give away 'secrets' if you don't want. But its hard to discuss deeply a general proposition that we would like our work to be relevant or interesting, or even that we would like it to involve numbers somewhere along the line. jon UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ======================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. ========================================================================

1 0

Re: first post (An Internet Without Space/reply to Elijah)
by Kevin Tharp 10 Feb '04

10 Feb '04

ET said: "I have ...<snip>" Well done, I am sure. But even in sports statistics are not the only thing to consider. Take my attendance at a baseball game as an instance. I do not know or care in most cases what a persons batting average is, or how well they have done in certain circumstances against certain players on certain fields. These statistics are readily available, but they do not mean anything to me, I simply don't care except as a curiosity. To me, the baseball game is about the camaraderie, the time spent with friends and family tailgating in the parking lot and in the stadium. I love the smell of the field, and the hot dogs, the seventh inning stretch and yes, the beer. The most important thing about a baseball game to me, is that I go with my children, and we are spending time together and creating memories that will last for a lifetime. If that is what you call hallucinating, then bring it on, because that is what baseball is to me. (For our Commonwealth friends, please replace baseball with cricket and hot dog with meat pie). I do not begin to suggest that the statistics are not a big part of the game. But please don't suggest to me that my experience of going to a baseball game is somehow not "real". Now I would extend the same argument to this discussion that started with the question of cyberspace. The richness of research will come from the diversity of research into the same phenomenon. Regards, Kevin W. Tharp

1 0

2004 Conference
by Nancy Baym 10 Feb '04

10 Feb '04

Hi all, A reminder that the extended deadline is fast approaching for the 2004 Association of Internet Researchers' conference at the University of Sussex, located in the seaside resort of Brighton and Hove, England. Sussex is a short train ride from London's Heathrow airport. Don't miss this chance to spend time with an unparalleled variety of internet researchers from many nations, disciplines, and perspectives while enjoying Brighton's "sun, sea, brilliant clubs, great places to eat, fabulous shops, cosmopolitan vibe and extraordinary atmosphere of tolerance and freedom" (quoted from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/publications/pgrad2004/1-1-7.html where you can learn more about the location). The deadline is February 15. Visit the conference website and read the CFP at: http://aoir.org/2004/ Many thanks to those of you who have already volunteered to serve as reviewers for the submissions. Your work is critical to the quality of the conference. Sheizaf Rafaeli, our program chair, is still interested in hearing from people willing to review, so if you are interested but have not yet contacted him, please send him a note at sheizaf(a)rafaeli.net and let him know your areas of expertise. I look forward to seeing many of you there! Nancy -- Nancy Baym http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym Communication Studies, University of Kansas Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 102, Lawrence, KS 66045-7574, USA Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org

1 0