Comments on: The News Today http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/the-news-today/ falling indelibly into the past Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:43:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/the-news-today/#comment-971 KF Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:46:04 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=460#comment-971 <p>Very good points, of course, and ones that I don’t at all disagree with.  The language of struggle is one I usually try to avoid w/r/t new technologies (and you think I’d know better, having just finished a book about the misuses of exactly that kind of language in writing about the relationship between the novel and television).  Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that, rather than “wresting” power from traditional media structures, these relatively new technologies allow communicators simply to evade those power structures altogether.  (Witness today’s post on academic anxieties about blogging.) Where there is the impression of “wresting” or struggling or any kind of combat among media, it’s from the perspective of the older forms—and it’s important to hear their insistence on these notions of combat for what they are.  The traditional media don’t simply debate the merits of these technologies, but repeatedly speak anxiously about them, about the effects they’re having on the kids today, or about the absence of journalistic standards they promote, or whathaveyou.  These anxieties are always about their own obsolescence—if any kid with a phone camera and a website can broadcast live from the scene of some happening or other, does anyone really need television anymore? </p> <p> I could go on.  As I said, I’ve got a whole book about this stuff.  But yes, I totally agree with you, no question, is the main point. </p> Very good points, of course, and ones that I don’t at all disagree with.  The language of struggle is one I usually try to avoid w/r/t new technologies (and you think I’d know better, having just finished a book about the misuses of exactly that kind of language in writing about the relationship between the novel and television).  Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that, rather than “wresting” power from traditional media structures, these relatively new technologies allow communicators simply to evade those power structures altogether.  (Witness today’s post on academic anxieties about blogging.) Where there is the impression of “wresting” or struggling or any kind of combat among media, it’s from the perspective of the older forms—and it’s important to hear their insistence on these notions of combat for what they are.  The traditional media don’t simply debate the merits of these technologies, but repeatedly speak anxiously about them, about the effects they’re having on the kids today, or about the absence of journalistic standards they promote, or whathaveyou.  These anxieties are always about their own obsolescence—if any kid with a phone camera and a website can broadcast live from the scene of some happening or other, does anyone really need television anymore?

I could go on.  As I said, I’ve got a whole book about this stuff.  But yes, I totally agree with you, no question, is the main point.

]]> By: Roger Lancefield http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/the-news-today/#comment-970 Roger Lancefield Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:35:39 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=460#comment-970 <p>Hi, thanks for your kind words about my town (London). </p> <p> Just wanted to comment on the idea that mobile phone users and bloggers are somehow attempting to wrest control from the traditional media. This may be splitting hairs, but it seems to me that there is no “struggle” or wrestling match occurring. Blogging is happening, tiny still and video cameras are just there and being used. There’s no permission required, no issue of consensus being sought, no period of experiment or adjustment, it’s just happening and there’s precious little anyone can do to stop it. The media can debate it, but it carries on regardless, and the media will just have to adpat and accommodate it. They like to act as if somehow the jury is out on these technologies, as if their benefits need to assessed, weighed and approved or rejected. But the reality is that my 11-year old niece doesn’t distinguish between IM or SMS or Web sites (personal or otherwise) or mobile telephony, or any other digital medium. There’s no “debate”, it’s all the same to her and it’s all the same to her friends. Neither does she distinguish much between a 1 megapixel cameraphone user and a guy from the press-corps with three expensive digital SLRs around his neck. In her world there’s no discussion of the merits or benefits, it’s just the backdrop to her life. Any attempt to cast this as a struggle between old and new is, IMHO, doomed, as the “battle” has been, and is, won virtually every time by the new technologies. </p> Hi, thanks for your kind words about my town (London).

Just wanted to comment on the idea that mobile phone users and bloggers are somehow attempting to wrest control from the traditional media. This may be splitting hairs, but it seems to me that there is no “struggle” or wrestling match occurring. Blogging is happening, tiny still and video cameras are just there and being used. There’s no permission required, no issue of consensus being sought, no period of experiment or adjustment, it’s just happening and there’s precious little anyone can do to stop it. The media can debate it, but it carries on regardless, and the media will just have to adpat and accommodate it. They like to act as if somehow the jury is out on these technologies, as if their benefits need to assessed, weighed and approved or rejected. But the reality is that my 11-year old niece doesn’t distinguish between IM or SMS or Web sites (personal or otherwise) or mobile telephony, or any other digital medium. There’s no “debate”, it’s all the same to her and it’s all the same to her friends. Neither does she distinguish much between a 1 megapixel cameraphone user and a guy from the press-corps with three expensive digital SLRs around his neck. In her world there’s no discussion of the merits or benefits, it’s just the backdrop to her life. Any attempt to cast this as a struggle between old and new is, IMHO, doomed, as the “battle” has been, and is, won virtually every time by the new technologies.

]]> By: colleen http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/the-news-today/#comment-969 colleen Fri, 08 Jul 2005 02:22:51 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=460#comment-969 <p>its more than a little unnerving for me, having just been there less than a month ago and having gone through Edgware Road and Kings Cross (fantastic picture of me at the fake sign they have up for platform 9 3/4s, incidently) innumerable times. Im most worried about Emily Heddleson, dont know if you know her, but shes been in london for a couple months with plans to stay 6 months to a year. Im hoping that if anything happened the school would find out and let us know. </p> its more than a little unnerving for me, having just been there less than a month ago and having gone through Edgware Road and Kings Cross (fantastic picture of me at the fake sign they have up for platform 9 3/4s, incidently) innumerable times. Im most worried about Emily Heddleson, dont know if you know her, but shes been in london for a couple months with plans to stay 6 months to a year. Im hoping that if anything happened the school would find out and let us know.

]]>