George’s posterous

In “Introduction to Mass Communication,” I’d like to see more discussions about how personal communications can easily become mass communication because the Web has hyperlinked everything.  Students should explore the changing models of mass communications – how int he past, content used to be broadcast to the masses, and would then be shared person-to-person.  Today, content is often shared person-to-person first, to be followed by dissemination to the masses.  Why?  How?

In “Human Communication,” I want to see the students dive down into the intricacies of how relationships created and maintained using social media are different than those that are solely face-to-face.  How does social media enhance or degrade these relationships?

In “Visual Communication,” the students should understand the visual impact of content on the Web.  How did we go from fancy, tricked out websites being a best practice to something as plain and boring as Twitter?  How and why did the banner ad die?  Why, when asked if there were ads on Google, did one teenager at the Web 2.0 Summit say, “no – are there supposed to be?”

In “Digital Skills and Information Gathering,” how do you differentiate between what’s fact and fiction online any more?  How many sources are need to verify?  What’s the definition of a source?  How do you use tools like Wikipedia and other social media as breadcrumbs to find more credible sources?

When I took “Media Writing,” I learned the AP Stylebook and how to write press releases.  Students should absolutely still learn these skills.  But, they should also learn how to write like a human being, in a conversational tone, not as a public relations machine.  They should learn what a good blog post looks and sounds like.  They should learn how to take a key message and put it into their own words, into their own writing style instead of conforming to a style guide.

“Media Law” should still involve a LOT of discussion of past cases and legal precedents, an exploration of the First Amendment, thorough reviews of the Pentagon Papers trial and other landmark cases.  But, there should also be a lot of “what if?” questions that tackle today’s social media landscape that hasn’t, in a lot of cases, gone through the legal rigor that other media has.  Let’s study Cybersquatting cases like LaRussa vs. Twitter, Inc. – let’s discuss the impacts of cases like that that don’t have a long legal history, but will surely help define the environment in which these students are going to be working.

I’d rename “International Communication” to be “Global Communication,” and I’d focus not just on the differences in communication styles between Western and Eastern countries, Asian cultures and Hispanic cultures, but on how it’s just as easy to communicate with someone 10,000 miles away as it is with your next door neighbor.  I’d have my students study the differences in how Americans communicate with each other online vs. how Eastern countries do it.  Do the basic communications differences that apply in face-to-face communication apply online too?  If not, why?

In “Communication Ethics,” this class would bring up discussions about attribution in an online, shareable communications environment.  How do the old rules of copyright and intellectual property apply?  Do they apply?  What about basic human interactions – if you ignore someone who sends a DM on Twitter, is that akin to ignoring someone who reaches out to shake your hand?  Where’s the line between criticizing the service your receive from a company on Twitter and attacking the person?  If I say,”I think @comcastcares is an idiot who doesn’t know which way is up, am I attacking Comcast or am I attacking Frank Eliason? Note: Frank is awesome

I would also add a class on “Principles of Customer Service” and make “Creative Writing” a prerequisite as well.  You see, social media shouldn’t be a class – it’s interwoven throughout a lot of classes.  And this isn’t just for communication classes, this would apply to political science majors (Barack Obama’s campaign anyone?), economics majors (how has the ability to share data globally and instantaneously impacted the speed at which the market changes?), sociology (how has social media changed the way families and friends communicate with one another?).

A much longer excerpt than I usually feel comfortable reposting, but this is a great illustration of curriculum redesign for digital/academic literacy.

The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million,

Put aside the swipes at super-size meals and easy obese targets, this Washington Post article about a US Department of Agriculture report makes shocking (to me) reading: "Among [US American] people of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food."

The report:
"... documents both Americans who are scrounging for adequate food -- people living with some amount of "food insecurity" in the lexicon of experts -- and those whose food shortages are so severe that they are hungry."

It is not sub Saharan Africa but this is not good.

And yet the western democracies continue to pour money into shoring up the economic system that has brought this state of affairs about. It is as if the rich are going super-nova while the rest get sucked into a black hole.

The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million,

Put aside the super-size jokes and easy obese targets. This Washington Post article about a US Dept of Agriculture report makes shocking reading:
"Among [US American] people of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food, compared with about 11 percent in 2007, the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history of the report. "

The report:
"... documents both Americans who are scrounging for adequate food -- people living with some amount of "food insecurity" in the lexicon of experts -- and those whose food shortages are so severe that they are hungry."

It is not Sub Saharan Africa, but this is not good. Yet, the western democracies insist on continuing to shore up the economic system that has brought about this state of affairs. It is as if the wealthy are going super-nova while the rest get sucked into a black hole.

Apple's filed a patent on a design for a device that won't let its owner use it unless that person demonstrates that she has complied with an advertiser's demands by paying attention to an ad and taking some action indicating her dutiful attention.

Google may be no saint and privacy is a problem, but Apple's attitude to consumers borders on contempt. There should be a split between hardware, applications and data. This is the kind of vertical and horizontal integration that the great 19th and early 20th century anti-trust movements were based on.

So, yes, I like my Mac. No, I do not like iTunes, no matter how clever "Genius" may be.

If governments wanted to do some good they could enforce net neutrality by banning hardware-level integration of applications (the player) and data (the tunes). And, about demanding "dutiful compliance" with an advertiser's will? To me the inappropriateness of such an approach is self evident and reduces me to spluttering.

Google Android running on HTC hardware with Spotify supplying the tunes is no more free of corporate ploys, but at least demanding that vendors support multiple platforms preserves some minimal choice.

There is absolutely no doubt that academic practices are changing - in fact text and what we can do with it is probably changing faster than other modes are being adopted - for me the question is how we reframe in the new knowledge media landscape what is valuable about academic modes of communication.

There are two strands of this issue for me: one, as Helen Beetham says, text is changing (a la Roland Barthes' Joy of Text: what is a "text"), but the other strand might be characterised as a rear-guard action to protect certain privileged forms of text: limiting access to "academic modes of communication". So, I take hope from Helen's observation (via the BL) that image search is on the rise. I hadn't realised this at all. Is is a sign that I am old that I use image search only to search for images? Am I actually part of that rear-guard action to defend "traditional" text-based knowledge, arguing - for example here - for new epistemologies while practising - promulgating that argument - and shoring up old ones? Note to self: start using those voice tools, videos and images to make academic arguments.

Edward Leigh MP, chairman of the [Public Accounts] Committee, today said:

"The closure of the local post office can be a real blow to the community. So the inadequate assessment by the Department [of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS)] of the social and economic costs of its programme to close some 2,500 post offices showed a real lack of concern for the citizens affected.

No kidding, BIS lacks concern for citizens.

Plugging [an electric Mini] in is, Steinberg said, the equivalent of adding one or two homes to the neighborhood’s grid. He believes the widespread adoption of electric cars, which are expected to hit the market next year, will require upgrades across the grid. This is especially true because BMW expects to see “pocket effects” where people who see a Mini E in the neighborhood will be more likely to get one themselves.

One electric mini equals 2 houses of electricity. I wonder how that compares to the kcals of petrol consumed by a conventional Mini?

Financial services now constitute a kind of tax on the real economy as well as distorting its priorities; short-termism and the search for impossibly high returns are rife. The culture, of which systematic insider trading is part, is having a growing impact on business ethics.

Will Hutton and the Equality Trust are two touchstones for understanding what's wrong with the bonus culture in banks and, by the way, the MP's expenses scandal. Hutton hits a nail on the head in today's Observer. The £38Bn paid to Lloyds/RBS for "restructuring" is equivalent to five times HEFCE annual recurrent grant to all English universities (7.9Bn). Goldman Sachs' 2009 "remuneration fund" will top £16Bn, and average over £300,000 for each of their traders.

Increased inequality in society contributes adversely to many indicators of social well-being: crime, teenage pregnancy, even obesity (seehttp://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence ). Hutton goes on to argue:
"One of the lessons of behavioural economics is that when people think that everybody else is honest, they are honest too. ... The converse is true. When people believe that sharp practice, double-dealing and the pursuit of greed are the norms they follow."

I think we (I align myself with the tolerant, fair minded British public) believe this to be true. I think we believe that if the pursuit of inequality (I win, screw you) were tempered by a pursuit of equality we would all benefit. The banking industry is not a social wealth generator. Even with tax paid (very little because most of the taxable profit ends up off shore) I suspect the net contribution, when the cost of servicing the consequences of inequality are taken into account, is substantially negative.