I don't 100% surely know if i understand this question, so if anybody agrees or disagrees with what i am saying, please would you comment me and say what you think?
However, Lister's book mentions that in 2000 when Channel 4's BB started there became a 'demand for access to the chat rooms to talk to the recently evicted member of the household.' The book describes that these chat rooms were overfilled with fans wanting to discuss their opinion and ask their questions to the newly evicted housemate. Although, Barker, Jenkins, Tulloch and Alvarado believe that t his is to do with 'fan culture' and wanting to be 'part of it'. However, to me i don't feel that that is an 'ordinary user' being producers of culture. I think that since 2000 Channel 4's BB started there has become a huge rise in 'ordinary users' becoming producers of culture through the means of MySpace, Youtube, Facebook, Blogspot etc. Take MySpace for example allows even just an 'ordinary user' to create a profile. Now whether it is about how much you love bunnies, or if you are a singer songwriter this is a way of yourself creating culture. Many singers have become successful from being 'spotted' on MySpace. Also, with MySpace you can add friends, the more friends you have then the more people you will have viewing your culture. Like for example the Artic Monkeys, they became popular through MySpace and created a huge fan base for themselves. This site then allows other users to respond to this culture. In addition, you can pay a small fee to create your own website and feature anything you want on there. This then allows other inet users to view the site and if their is a forum can then respond to that culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
rincy, ill comment tonight when i have more time :)
ReplyDeletethis is similar to last weeks post about 'open architecture' everybody has the ability to build on the internet. They can write their own posts, comment on articles etc. This medium allows people to be able to produce their own culture, and as Lister says, there is no control on how data flows on the internet. People have their own right to give their opinions, whether its through themselves or personas. Social networking sites is to give people the abililty to express themselves, which is allowing people to control the culture they live in. However, i still feel there is an element of control from powerful organisations, even on the internet. By society reading their websites like BBC, The Sun etc, they still have control on what you see, but people now have the ability to reply. By speaking out more, the internet has allowed culture to change and develop by people rejecting some of the sites or ideas given to them.
ReplyDeletei think that these powerful organisations need to ne controlled because if not they will get a lot of 'stick' for it if they don't take action over serious issues. like i said above, i think the inet does allow us to speak freely and also think freely which then allows produsers to create their own culture for people to then comment.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this points out a argument to Turkle's idea of freedom, whether she was being 'naive' about saying that this freedom is good for society. If there are no boundaries then people start rebelling.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the important things about this question is the idea (on p. 185) of the "cult of public opinion". In other words, what seems to be happening here is that many people want to be involved: "users are here able to participate in the space of media represenation" (same page). So it's not just that many people can get online and say what they want to say, but there is a massively multiplied opportunity to be involved in 'the media'. Many more people then get to 'touch' their stars or heroes AND be seen with them (in a virtual space) than RL allows.
ReplyDelete