This part really caught my attention:
“If Web 1.0 was the basic bogs of the Internet, and Web 2.0 was the launch of user-generated content (e.g., Wikipedia), then Web 3.0 is that moment when you forget you’re doing any of this stuff. It’s when using the Internet becomes so casual, so much a part of your natural life, that you don’t think about it anymore … you no longer have the conscious sense of a dividing line between the real and the online world.”
Those clever bods at Google have put up this interesting (if you are a geeky nerd like me) analysis of searches done through their engine relating to the main parties, their leaders, chancellors, and key election issues. More evidence of new media in the election. And graphs. I love graphs.
Great article about new media interactive cross platform links from broadcast texts. Read, media students, read…
Great series by Alecks Krotoski outlining the development and influence of the New Media. The whole series is on iPlayer - if you get a chance you should watch episode one which deals with the rise of Web 2.0, UGC etc - great revision guide!
Even more useful is episode two which deals with the influence of the new media on politics:
"With contributions from Al Gore, Martha Lane Fox, Stephen Fry and Bill Gates, Aleks explores how interactive, unmediated sites like Twitter and YouTube have encouraged direct action and politicised young people in unprecedented numbers.
Yet, at the same time, the Web’s openness enables hardline states to spy and censor, and extremists to threaten with networks of hate and crippling cyber attacks.”
It’s really good stuff, and would be quite useful for this week’s homework:
"How do you think the new media will influence the forthcoming election?"
Interesting article from the Guardian’s technology editor, Charles Arthur - ties in social networking, news paywalls, Rupert Murdoch’s attack on Google, and Google’s own Super Bowl TV ad. All into one story - which implies that Google is on the wane. Can this be possible?
I think one of the best WWF campaigns
Now that is inspired advertising.
Google paid a reputed $5 million to place an advert on TV during the Super Bowl in America yesteday. Totally new departure for a company whose reputation has been built almost entirely online and by word-of-mouth. Indeed, their Chief Executive Eric Schmidt tweeted that ”someone said “Hell has indeed frozen over”” as Google used the old media to advertise the new…but I’ve seen billboard ads for Google’s Chrome browser everywhere, so it can’t be that new…
Anyway, the advert itself is quite sweet really. Romantic. In a traditional “American in Paris” way. And clearly men use search engines, not women. Sigh.
Great to see so much sense in various companies’ social media guidelines, including the BBC.
Kutiman’s “Thru You” video - loads of YouTube musical performances cut up and spliced together. A music-and-video mashup to illustrate Chris Dede’s “Co-creating” phase of Web 2.0. So good.
Went to a conference in Bristol the other week. It wasn’t that great but there was an interesting theory which was proposed by the keynote speaker, Professor Chris Dede from Harvard University in America. He was talking about how computers are used in the everyday lives of people, and traced the developement from Web 1.0 (where we all read stuff that proper professional people had put up there) through to Web 2.0 (where we all post stuff and read/watch/listen to stuff that other normal people, just like us, have posted), not as a single shift, but as a continuum.
He defined three stages:
- Sharing - this is Flickr, YouTube etc. On these sites you post pre-existing artefacts (photos or videos) that may have been created for other purposes originally. It also goes for elements of Facebook and Twitter where you share a link, photo or whatever.
- Thinking - this is where the Web provides an area for development of thoughts. Vlogs, Blogs and Podcasts where people write, film or record what they think about things. Rather like this Tumblr.
- Co-creating - this is where people use the web to collaborate on creative projects such as wikis (Wikipedia being the obvious example) and mashups.
Interestingly, Dede charts the development of Web 2.0 as a development of thought and creativity alongside technological progress - and he saw it as getting better with time. I agree. Here is the most amazing mashup made by a man trawling other people’s YouTube videos and editing them together to make what can only be described as a masterpiece….
In fact, I’m going to post that as a video link sometime.
Okay, I admit that the title of this theory sounds a little bit dubious, but bear with me. Robert Andrews has invented or applied this term to the insane Twitter response to the outpouring of tweets, Facebook updates and blog posts that accompany each episode of the X Factor on ITV1. He lists the following statistics related to the Jedward/Lucie Sunday night show on 15th November:
• X-Factor occupied half of Twitter’s top “trending” global topics list during Sunday’s show.
• @TheXFactor has 51,000+ Twitter followers and a total 1.65 million Facebook fans.
• 13,000-14,000 live comments come in via CoverItLive chat during a typical Sunday night. Together with text messages, emails and tweets, they are filtered by an editor for panelists on Holly Willoughby’s Xtra Factor show.
• 11,000 The X Factor twibbons are being worn by tweeters’ avatars; and they have been exposed to a further 850,000 users.
All these statistics (provided by the social media editor of ITV.com, Ben Ayres) point to a new media phenomenon, argues Andrews - The Two Screen Social Back-Channel.
The theory goes that you have one screen (the TV) with your primary text on it. In the old media world you would go to work or school the next day and talk to your friends about it - the so-called “water-cooler” effect. Now, you have your second screen (laptop or mobile) visible at the same time and use this second screen to interact with others, chat and comment on the show while it is happening via social networks or forums. And this is the social back-channel.
MASSIVE uproar currently happening about an injunction taken out against The Guardian newspaper, preventing them from reporting on parliamentary questions relating to the Trafigura toxic waste dumping scandal. A summary:
The Guardian reported (on May 14th) that the Swiss Company Trafigura dumped toxic waste on the Ivory Coast, resulting in the sickness of many inhabitants of the area.
Then, yesterday, the following appeared in an article on the Guardian’s Website:
"Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.
The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.”
All very cryptic…but the suggestion is that the dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast is probably the subject of the question in parliament.
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief is today challenging the injunction which prevents a British newspaper from reporting what is happening in the British Parliament for the first time since the 18th century.
The injunction is only against the Guardian, which is why the Spectator is able to report the matter fully in a blog by Alex Massie although he notes there is no coverage of this story on the BBC website - although, in the time of writing this blog, there is now. And that’s how fast the new media moves…
Twitter is going mental about this (it’s all three of the top trending topics) and doubtless the story will develop as the day goes on. Can big business gag the free press? I think (and I hope) the Guardian will win this one…
BREAKING NEWS: and then, surfing a tidal wave of tweets, The Guardian wins its victory without even having to go to court. By preventing the newspaper from reporting a question about whether Trafigura was involved in illegally dumping toxic waste in Africa, the law firm Carter-Ruck sparked a massive storm in the Twitterverse, ensuring that more people now know about it than the entire readership of the Guardian for the week put together…
My favourite tweet from the whole episode?
Useful lesson in the power of social networking to influence legal decision-making, anyway. http://econsultancy.com/blog/4780-social-media-turns-toxic-avenger-for-the-guardian-trafigura-2
Now Sky are in on the act, tackling iTunes, Spotify, Napster, LastFM and the rest with their own subscription music download and streaming service - Sky Songs. Cheaper than iTunes? Yes. Free? No. The answer to illegal downloading? I doubt it. But the prospect of downloading through your set-top box might give Sky an edge in a marketplace that Apple has not yet completely dominated - broadcast TV. They still don’t have the iPod/iPhone base which keeps people loyal to iTunes, but Sky+ is still the market leading HD TV service and integrating this with music downloads and streaming may give the Murdoch-owned BSkyB a way in to the market…we shall see.
- Gender Agenda
The other day the Guardian wrote about the gender stereotyping in Boots’ toy department. This is an issue that I have been aware of...