Who is Lessig referring to when he argues ‘ours was a free culture’, what does he believe made that culture free and why does he believe that culture is now becoming less free?

 

Lessig believes in the value of property, but mentions that there is plenty of value that “property” doesn’t capture, like the value that is plainly part of a process of production. When he argues ‘ours was a free culture’, is it because of the weak regulation of the law that spurred Walt Disney creativity, or is it because of a vague hypothesis that suggests ‘derivative works’ further augments the mainstream market? I believe that it is both. It is clear that Lessig asserts that all cultures are free to some degree. The true question is how much can others actually take from a culture and build something out of it?

 

 

Lessig, L 2004, ‘Creators’, in Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology And The Law To Lock Down Culture and Creativity, The Penguin Press, New York, pp. 21-30.

Give an example of consumption of authenticity based on your own experience.

An instance here would be my recent viewing of reality television. These ‘characters’ on reality shows seem like they came out from a story book, but at the same time I found that I could relate to them. It is under the assumption that all reality shows are scripted to create ‘authenticity’. I find the ‘necessary manipulation’ makes the show more interesting, and creates a genuine sense of authenticity. But, if I really wanted a show to seem real, wouldn’t I just let things happen naturally?

 

Zukin, S 2008 ‘Consuming Authenticity’, Cultural Studies, 22:5, pp. 724-748. http://primoapac01.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/RMITU/RMIT_SERVICES_PAGE?sid=&issn=0950%2D2386&volume=22&issue=5&

In what sense is the community of a nation ‘imagined’ according to Anderson? Are any other communities imagined in this way? Explain.

Anderson proposes that nationalism is idiosyncratic and there is no ‘definite’ definition to it. He also says that nationalism should be treated as if it belonged with ‘kinship’ and ‘religion’, rather than with ‘fascism’ or ‘liberalism’. Therefore he puts forward his own definition of a nation: it is an imagined political community, and is imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.

Anderson states that basically all communities are imagined. Some examples would be online social communities, on social media sites or even in online games. In accordance to Ernest Gellner’s claim, he says that communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity, but by the way that they are imagined. Each of these imagined communities exist by sharing common interests, even without ever having any physical contact.

Anderson, B 1991, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Verso, London & New York, pp. 1-9

Explain the concept of ‘globalisation as hybridization’.

It is understood that globalisation involves the relative weakening of nation states, which encompasses the reinforcement of or go together with localism, and the reinforcement of both supranational and subnational regionalism. Globalisation has created a wide spectrum of organisational options. Thus, the overall tendency towards increasing globalisation translates into the pluralisation of organisational forms. The emergence of new economical, political, and social practices is the manifestation of how hybridisation is superimposed on globalisation.

Pieterse, JN 2009, ‘Globalisation as Hybridization’, in Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp. 658-680.

Use an example to explain Jenkins’ claim that fans are ‘poachers’.

Fans are claimed to be ‘poachers’ because they attempt to integrate representations within their own social experience. A good example to Jenkins’ claim would be the advent of fan fiction. I was left quite disgruntled and dissatisfied when the American sitcom ‘How I Met Your Mother‘ did not end the way I wanted it to. As such, quite a handful of people who shared my views instead developed an alternate ending to the series, an ending which provides ‘proper’ or ‘satisfying’ closure, or in De Certeau‘s words, “reappropriating it”.

Jenkins, H 2006, ‘Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching’, in Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture, New York UP, New York & London, pp. 37-60

What do we mean by the term video? Is the word video used in a  number of different ways? Do you use video in your everyday life? If so, how do you use it? What is meant by time-shifting? Do you think time-shifting has helped to create a new kind of active audience and, if so, why?

Video, in contrast to traditional media use (i.e. cinema and film), is retrievable, recordable, and replayable. Video is deemed to have brought about a “revolutionary” change to the traditions of motion picture spectatorship. I personally prefer video because it allows me a greater sense of control over what I’m viewing. Just like time-shifting, I value personal freedom and prefer being in control of what I view, when I want to view it – or more commonly known as zipping. In addition to providing an extra sense of authority, time-shifting, has contributed to the creation of a new kind of active audience, because it encourages active participation, choice behaviour, and involvement.

Rubin, AM & Eyal, K 2002, ‘The Videocassette Recorder in the Home Media Environment’ in Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses, eds. Lin, CA& Atkin DJ, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 329-336. https://equella.rmit.edu.au/rmit/file/c633a660-dc02-4887-b58e-1030e115073d/1/130305_3_021.pdf

Benson-Allott, C 2013, Killer Tapes and Shattered Screens: Video Spectatorship from VHS to File Sharing, University of California Press, Berkley, pp. 1-7. http://www.rmit.eblib.com.au.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1157661 

On what basis that audiences are active creators of meaning?

Barker proposed that audiences are not aggregated, but individualistic. Audiences do not simply uncritically accept textual meanings, but instead they are their own producers of meaning, based on the premise of their own cultural competency which is formed through language and social relationships. Even with the assumption that the nature of an active audience is to resist ideology, the ‘assumed’ level of sophistication and literacy in television  does not prevent audiences from fabricating their own ideologies, therefore undermining the premise and proving that audiences are active creators of meaning.

Barker, C 2003, ‘Active Audiences’, in Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, Sage, London pp. 325-329

Is Boeder right when he argues that ‘the conventional notion of a single, unified public sphere is likely to disappear in favour of a more segmented, pluralist model’? Demonstrate using a contemporary example of mediated public discourse.

First off, it is notable that Boeder affirms the exaggeration on how commodification has posed a serious ‘threat’ to freedom of speech on the Internet. It is undeniable that Habermas’ coffeehouse discourse has opened up ample amount of possibilities towards the enhancement of digital networks and social structures. News is no longer transmitted traditionally, but instead is ‘filtered’ in a way that it is shaped in accordance to an audience’s preference. Boeder’s affirmation is simply a manifestation of an increasingly polyvocal public.

Boeder, P 2005, ‘Habermas’ heritage: the future of the public sphere in the network society’, First Monday, vol 10, no. 9

How, according to Altheide, does the mass media construct a discourse of fear?

Altheide suggests that fear is instilled through the context and time of our lives. I think that it is true that fear only objectifies if it is relatable to a personal level. Also, the stereotypes of fear that are conveyed in mass media become more buried into peoples’ heads through repetition. Fear defines an ever expanding array of news reports.

Altheide, D 2002, ‘The Lens of Fear’, in Creating Fear: News and the Construction of Crisis’, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, pp. 175-198.

According to Habermas, what role did newspapers play in the emergence of the public sphere?

Newspapers are accessible to all citizens and plays an important role as a media of the public sphere. Newspapers changed from being mere institutions for the publication of news to the medium for public opinion. Newspapers were also the “pioneers” to revolutionary movement, and acts as a symbolic body to the struggle for freedom and public opinion. Now, the newspaper is a dealer of public opinion instead of a vendor of mere compilations of notices and news.

Habermas, J 2009 ‘The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article’, in Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp. 73-78.