Personal Media Use and Production Diary

Personal Media Use and Production Diary

Our challenge was to record our media usage over 10 days and analyse the patterns we have, and how they compare to those of our peers and then relate them back to Journalism and Mass Communication.

My total usage is summed up in the table below, and the pie chart displays what fraction of my total media usage time is spent on each type:

I spent most of my time listening to music on my iPod, then general searching on the Internet and then going on Facebook. This can be explained by the fact that music can be listened to whilst doing other things, in my case every time I am on my computer. I only use the radio and television sporadically, when I go home from college where I live, and do not have a television. It shows that I am definitely more reliant on new media, like the Internet, that I have to use it every day.

For this task, I decided to divide my findings into 3 questions, the first being:

1)     Do we use more Old Media or New Media?

Journalism is changing. It is moving from classic media types, like TV and newspapers and magazines and radio to new media- the Internet, social networking and blogs. So I have split my usage into Old Media usage and New Media usage, as seen in this chart.

It is obvious that I use New Media much more than Old Media. In the 10 days I logged my media use, I used New Media for 84% of my total time, and only 16% for Old Media. This shows what we have been learning so far; New Media is becoming much more popular than Old Media. The survey supports this nothion; 75.5% of my peers use the Internet between 1-4 hours a day (And I am right in the middle with 1.7 hours), but the majority of students only listen to the radio for less than an hour, and watch television 1-2 hours, or less than 1 hour.

Journalism is moving towards New Media, and journalism will have to adapt to the new ways. I used New Media every day, to connect with friends, do research and organise my plans. One of the reasons that New media, and especially the Internet, is so widely used, is because everything is posted online. We make plans with our friends on facebook and twitter, we look at movie times and public transport on Google, even our lecturers and tutors refer us to the World Wide Web for any questions or resources. It is all there! Why would people find a few different, expensive sources, such as newspapers and magazines when all the information is available at the click and a scroll of our mouse? New Media is easy, it is accessible and it is more “fun” for the younger generations to use.

Now that we’ve established that the Internet is used most:

2)      What do we use the Internet for?

I use the Internet mostly for researching or watching things, with minimal publishing and production. This differs from my cohort, as the survey showed that 10% twitter, 32.4% blog on a regular basis. This reaffirms the notion that Web 2.0 is about “prod-users”. Our generation get their information from the Internet, and then repost it or rewrite that information in their own terms. The blogging results might be a little bit inflated because of our compulsory blog, but the results still confirm that mass communication is incredibly important in our daily lives.

Lastly, I want to investigate how we, as Journalism students, get news:

3)      Where do we get our news from?

The survey results show:

The survey showed that most people get their news from TV, online newspapers and then actualy newspapers. The surprising result was that 48.4% of my peers get their news from facebook. I find this strange, because there is not really a respected news platform on facebook, it is all secondary information from other people, mixed with their opinions. This is another verification that we are increasingly using new media sources to get our news, therefore Journalism will need to move to online resources. I however, got all my news from mainly newspapers and also online newspapers. This is mostly because I do not have a television accessible, and enjoy reading a hard copy of news. But even I think that it is much easier to read online news.

Conclusion:

I was extremely surprised at how reliant I actually was on media. Keeping a log of my time spent on each different media platform made it obvious how much time I actually spent. When I woke up in the morning, I immediately felt the need to check my facebook and email. I listened to music most of the day. A very small portion of my time was actually spent on reading news or important information. It is clear that new media is used much more than old media and Journalism is moving in that direction as well.

YouTube is Powerful

Of all the interactive Internet platforms, youtube is probably my favourite. Most of my time is spent on looking at different music clips. Especially the acoustic versions of songs, or covers of songs. But watching some videos today reminded me of how powerful youtube can be. For musicians in particular. Without being famous or rich or signed to a record company, youtube provides a service that immediately advertises the musicians. Every day someone on facebook puts up a link of a song they like (or hate) and everyone can go look at it. And this can spread so quickly, I've realised! Every social network is so interlinked, that posting something on facebook or twitter automatically creates a chain reaction of hundreds, or thousands of people seeing something that would otherwise be unknown. And it is so simple, just the click of a button. I only need to think of a year ago, when the phenomenon that is Rebecca Black, graced the interweb. Forgotten about it already? Here is a quick reminder:

In the span of 2 weeks she had COMPLETELY taken over every form of media I was exposed to; facebook, twitter, text messages, conversations, even news articles and radio programs talked about it every day. Soon hundreds of parody videos and debates emerged over youtube.

This brought home to me how powerful interactive media can be. Had this video not been newsfeed-raping every person with a computer (or ears), the song would probably not have been important at all. It was simply the act of a few people talking about it on facebook or youtube that somehow created this viral miracle. I honestly believe that if the song had not been so widely spread, few people would have hated the song as severely as they do. "Worst song ever written", I believe is the most commonly used phrase in relation to this video. Even if I just think of the death-stares I have received from my friends when I accidentally hummed "it's friday, friday", I realise how influential "accidental journalism" can be.

If we say that every comment, every status, every post is seen as some form of journalism, then imagine all the negative reporting that was happening. This is largely the reason that everyone hated Friday. Basically, just because everyone else hated it. People are generally stupid. People are generally unoriginal. And people like having opinions and ideas given to them, because then they don't have to think of it themselves. Journalism can be so powerful, especially on the mass media platform we have today.

This brings me to the most recent and obvious example of this: Kony 2012. Don't deny it, you have reposted it, I know you have! Here is the infamous video:

Never would I ever have imagined that this one video would cause so much commotion and controversy. In the matter of days, this video was all that was talked about. I remember talking someone who mentioned that he watched the video one night, and it was at about 1 million views. He then left it overnight and when he refreshed it the next morning, it was at 10 million views. It was phenomenal.

I also remember the first time I heard about Invisible Children. It was in 2008 in my classroom in South Africa. We watched the video and I was so moved by it. I researched everything about it. I joined the group, signed the pledge. And honestly, I only thought about it sporadically over the next few years. And then Kony 2012 popped up.

Now, I do not really want to go into my exact thoughts about what this video is trying to do, and if it is succeeding. Because I do think it is great that people finally know about this issue. After years of the world being oblivious. And it is not as if I did a lot to help the cause. But the rate at which this got popular, did not make me think that people suddenly cared. It only reminded me of the ease at which we can control the masses.

Everyone was reposting it. Everyone was suddenly a social activist. The fact that there were many other, maybe even bigger, problems in the world did not really occur to anyone. I've seen how people blogged about how the popularity of this video made them believe in the power and goodness of the human race. It did the exact opposite for me. As condescending Wonka so cleverly states:

People like being part of something. People like feeling that they are important and showing off to everyone else. And this video seemed to be just another way for people to show off their personal "originality". Don't get me wrong, I know that getting the word out is good, and that so many people genuinely care. But I do believe the majority of people just want to jump on the band wagon of whatever fad is in this week. In a month everyone will have forgotten completely about it.

Journalism and mass media can be so powerful. The Kony 2012 and Rebecca Black videos show this. But this means we have to be so much more careful, because what we publish and what we say can have a huge impact on many people's opinions.

The Rise of Ignorance (Week 2.0)

This week's lecture was about the wonders of New Media. This excludes old media, eg. newspapers and magazines and TV. Firstly I would like to put my 2 cents in, and say that I would never have guessed that TV would already be classified as "old media". I am 18 years old and that makes me feel ancient.

We then went on to discuss the Web Point Ohs. These are my (fantastic) summaries of each type:

Web 1.0- ads ads ads reading ads ads ads ads

Web 2.0- SOCIALIZINGGGG

Web 3.0- the web knows what you want, where you want it, when you want it, how and with whom.

I apologize for the informal description, but as we have already established- anyone can put anything on a blog. And the summary cannot be completed without the comic that was on the slideshow:

(http://husseinahmed.com/2010/09/web-1-0-2-0-3-0-and-counting%E2%80%A6/)

Where we are headed, is Web 3.0, where all the information we are given by the wonderful Interweb, will be specially customised to our personal likes. This is great for advertisers and lazy students (who really only want to know when the last Twilight movie is coming out). But for society, I think that this could be incredibly damaging. And I don't just mean damaging in the way that it is embarrassing getting ads for Justin Bieber tickets, when you only watched one of his videos as a joke. Getting information only about things you already know or care about means that's it; your horizon will never be broadened. Your knowledge limit now, will be your limit forever.

Maybe I am just pessimistic by nature, but there seems to be something slightly backwards about breeding a secluded, blissfully unaware generation. It automatically made me think of something I saw mentioned on the Daily Show with John Stewart a few months ago. He briefly mentioned how Time magazine had different cover stories in America compared to every other country. Here are a few examples I could find:

And then I saw that the same thing was happening with Newsweek:

(http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/02/american-vs-international-news-time-and-newsweek/)

Now I don't know about you, but I think there is something slightly disturbing about an international, well respected NEWS magazine having a cover story about a crisis in Pakistan, whilst America happily reads about "What makes a school great". America is already stereotypically known for their ignorance about world news, and here is an obvious example of how mass communication is enabling it. If this is already happening, and has been happening for years, the whole 'catering to your cares and needs' ideology of Web 3.0 seems to be moving in the complete wrong direction.

And the same thing is happening in Australia. I only moved here 2 years ago, and I was actually shocked by how little of the rest of the world Australians seemed to care about. I came from South Africa, where (just to use one example) we heard about the crisis (and it is a crisis) in Zimbabwe every day. The killings, the poverty, the dictatorship, the suppression, the illegal immigrants in South Africa and the unbelievable xenophobia that came paired with it. For years I had grown up with a knowledge of this. And when I came to Australia I did not hear one single word. It felt like the crisis must have disappeared somehow, even though I know it did not. Instead I was bombarded with "How much hormones is in your chicken?" and "One person mugged in the Gold Coast, seeking psychological help". 

I am not comfortable with the Web 3.0 silencing so much information, simply because we want to make people's lives more enjoyable and easy. Why would we, as journalists, be content with enabling people to stay in their bubble of ignorance? I believe we should want to inform the public of everything, honestly and ethically. I know that it is not all in our hands. But I believe we should aim to inform.

Weak Won?

Summary of Lecture 1:
Journalism is available on so many different forms. It's pretty fun. And then what the assessments are going to be. Then they told us that I AM a journalist already (aww shucks, me? really?) Something about blogs. Quotes are cool.

A good summary? I thinks so.

What really stuck with me about this lecture, and then the later discussion in the tutorial is: What classifies as journalism? Newspapers and magazines and news shows, we can all agree on. But what about blogs? Advertisements? Blogs? Twitter? Facebook rants? Scribbles on the back of napkins? The line starts to get pretty fuzzy, pretty fast. Even when we get a solid, unshakeble opinion about what we think qualifies to be journalism, what do we know? Why do some things count as journalism and others don't? Why do we get to decide what is worth knowing? It's easy to say that some information, say "Drinking an ice tea and watching Pride and Prejudice. Life is good :)" is not important to the public (because it really isn't). But then what about a magazine doing a piece on Kim Kardashian's wardrobe? That is equally unimportant; to me, that is. Or an Australian newspaper leaving out an incident that happened to a small village in Africa? That IS important to me. When you start thinking like that, you start going in a never ending loop.

And it hurts my head.

I think Easy A said it best:

http://youtu.be/d0E8QkHwK1s

"I don't know what your generation's fascination is with documenting your every thought, but I can assure you, they're not all diamonds."

What IS our generation's obsession? Why do we feel that what we think is useful to the world? It is every person's right to say what they want. As the heading has tried to say (very poorly, I admit - I just like puns. A LOT), the weak are winning. The ones who do not really care or try or are talented at journalism are getting ahead with the shortcuts and easy tricks that all these platforms are providing. But I think it is compromising the quality of journalism. It is hard to compete with the millions of other bloggers and tweeters and facebookers. And to be taken seriously when society seems to think that "everyone can do it". Everyone can do it, but not everyone should.

That is why I think JOUR1111 and the rest of the course will be important. It will give us some structure. It will show us how to find our voice and do something unique in whichever field we choose to pursue. I hope so anyway.

Oh! Hello there.

I feel that there is only one possible way of starting this brand new, shiny blog. And that is with this quote:

"Journalism is never done. It's just due."

From the two second Google search I just did, this quote seems to belong to one Natalie Costa. Smart woman.

This is my first post. And I think it is very appropriate that whilst I am writing this, I have a tab open for Facebook, Twitter, Google and youtube. Because if JOUR1111 has taught me anything in the last few weeks, it is that journalism can flourish (or die) practically anywhere. Everyone can have their little moment in the interweb-virtual sunlight. Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen.

I am Cilna van Wijk. I am 18 years old. I live in Brisbane. I was born and bred in South Africa. English is my second language. I am studying Engineering and Journalism. I am a master of procrastination. Nice to meet you.