Oval Office

The Walkley Foundation is an organisation that supports ethical Australian journalism, and works to encourage a strong and innovative media environment. The concept pair I’ve decided to explore in my images is ‘real/manipulated’. I chose this pair because the idea of media manipulation is prevalent in the digital world, as fake news is widespread across digital spaces. My images aim to represent the Walkley Foundation as a strong supporter of ethical and truthful journalism, and as an antithesis to fake news.

 

I have chosen to use a collage approach to my images, placing the subject outside of their original context and giving new life to the image (Hall 2011).

My first image centres around the idea of fake news in the political sphere. I’ve altered an image of a woman reading a newspaper to show two alternatives concerning news, one where the media produces fake news and one where the media produces trust worthy news. The rise of fake news following the 2016 election has created an extreme distrust in the media in the public (Mihailidis & Viotty 2017), and I wanted to showcase the Walkley Foundation as offering an alternative to that view of the media.

Utilising information value zones, I placed the altered image showing the ‘fake news’ newspaper on the left. Kress and van Leeuwen state that an effective use of splitting information includes placing “given” information on the left, and information on the “issue” you are exploring on the right (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996). The given understanding of the media in today’s climate is one of distrust, and the image on the left mirrors that. In placing the alternative view of the media on the right, I am allowing the viewer to consider the positive impact of the Walkley Foundation in the Australian media.

 

The use of symbolism is important for this image. I chose to use a print newspaper as opposed to a digital one as a tangible newspaper is a symbol of the ‘real’, whereas digital news has an association with being fake.

 

To create my altered newspaper, I used the pen tool to paint over the words on the page. I took great care to match the colour of the paper or section of paper, using the colour toggle on Pixlr to find the correct shade.

I wanted the image to have a closer association to the political sphere, so I used the ‘lasso’ tool to remove the woman from her original background and place her in the Oval Office of the US president, rather than in her original context. Fake news is closely linked to the US President following the 2016 Presidential Campaign (Mihailidis & Viotty 2017), something that I’ve mirrored in my image by placing the woman in the image in the Oval Office. This represents the link between political spheres and the media.

Girl Reading

My second image focuses on the dangers of illegitimate media practices concerning the youth. There is considerable danger and fear that young people are being exploited in the digital world (Livingston 2002 p.18). Despite the assumption that ‘digital natives’ are digitally literate (Kirschner & De Bruyckere 2017), they too can be manipulated by fake news. I used my image to convey the Walkley Foundation’s focus on truth to counteract that fear. To explore this issue, I chose to use an image of a child reading two alternative newspapers in a classroom to represent the link between media and education.

 

In this image, the girls gaze gives a natural salience towards the newspaper, allowing the viewer to consider the words on the paper before their gaze focuses on the girl and the classroom (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996). Further, the use of rhetorical questions on the newspaper forces the reader to question the implications of the media on children to be received by the viewer.

 

As with my other images, I’ve offered two alternative images to the reader. The ‘new’ information, the association of the Walkley foundation with trustworthy and truthful news media, is placed on the right (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996).

My first drafts of this just featured the girl with her original background, which was grey and not very engaging. Those who commented on my images suggested utilising the background more effectively, rather than having blank space. I wanted to incorporate the educative theme, so utilised the background in this way.

 

This was the first image where I removed the individual from their background and placed them in a more interesting and thematic environment. I used the lasso tool to select the girl and remove her from the background, before placing her over an image of a classroom. This background was much more engaging as opposed to the grey original background, and fit well with the educative theme.

Man on Bus

 

With my final image, I wanted to convey the importance of truthful and ethical news on everyday individuals, which is an important part of the Walkley Foundation’s mission. For this image, the setting of the bus was chosen as catching the bus is something that millions of people do each day, representing how news has a strong influence in the lives of everyday Australians. The background was also more abstract than the original background, something that Margolin, Manor and Tal argue brings the salient point (the newspaper) into greater focus (Margolin, Zelnik-Manor, & Tal 2012).

Like the previous image, the use of the man’s gaze onto the newspaper acts as a natural salience point to the paper, putting the focus of the image on the paper itself (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996). However, the man is reading an open newspaper, representing how ordinary people should be diving deeper into news issues to gain a deeper understanding of the world.

I explored the idea of having framing around the images. I thought that this would further separate the two ‘alternative newspapers’ and create a better distinction. However, my classmates informed me that it made my image more clunky, something that I agreed with. The distinction between the two images is still clear without the framing, but the image itself blends a lot more seamlessly.

I took a photo of the bus seat on my local bus for this image.

DRAFT 3

To stick more to the concept pair idea (mine is real and manipulated), I’ve used a duplication of the image below to give more of a binary effect to the image. With the intention of showing two alternative versions of a newspaper, the Walkley supported paper to be the one which is the preferred.

I have chosen to step away from just a newspaper to photos of individuals reading newspapers to expose the fact that ‘fake news’ and mistrust in the media ultimately hurts people. The woman’s face is the obvious salient point in the image, as it is lighter than the background and our eyes are drawn towards people’s faces, this draws the reader in and makes it more personal. The next focal point is the newspaper, with the intention to be that the viewer flicks between the two papers and sees the difference between fake news and Walkley supported journalism. I have chosen to use black and white images as it gives a more solemn and thoughtful feeling to the image.

 

Draft 2

After my paper prototyping last week, I decided to have a go at creating my own fake newspaper- ‘Blatant Propaganda’ which promotes the Walkley Foundation as the pinnacle for journalism- especially in the age of fake news.

I have been thinking of creating this newspaper, printing it out, and then using an image of someone reading it as my submission piece, possibly with more image alterations of people reading it in different locations.

Fighting To Be Seen

Despite representing 18.3% of the Australian population (ABS 2015), disabled individuals are continually underrepresented or misrepresented in mainstream media. Multidimensional portrayals of those with a disability are rare in mainstream media, rather, they are often reduced to stereotypes and tropes (Boross & Rejinders 2018). A study of 469 radio listeners with a disability found that the majority of respondents believed that they had been portrayed in a stereotypical fashion (Ross 2001). The tropes of ‘tragic but brave’ or ‘dependent and helpless’ continually occurred, and respondents noted frustration at the reduction of the disabled experience (Ross 2001).

Ellis and Goggin argue that participatory media presents the potential for marginalised groups to further their engagement with mainstream media (2015). The use of new technologies, such as audio blogging, have increased accessibility for those with a disability. Further, these new technologies have allowed those with a disability to produce their own content to gain meaningful representation. Through participatory media, disabled people can fight for a seat at the table in the media sphere.

Participatory media is often described as a response to the ‘top-down’ traditional media systems which are exclusionary, further, participatory media is described as ‘bottom-up’ (Spurgeon & Edmond 2015), in that the creator’s experience is embedded in the content, encouraging self-representation.

A success of participatory is the ability to use crowdfunding to self-represent. An example of this, ‘My Gimpy Life’, follows the attempts of Teal Sherer to find work as a disabled actress. Sherer was able to raise $55,000 for the second season of ‘My Gimpy Life’ through crowdfunding (Ellis & Goggin 2015). The ability of disabled individuals to crowdfund encompasses the true meaning of self-representation and bottom-up participatory media. Sherer puts it best: “I don’t think people with disabilities are seen enough in the media, and instead of waiting on someone else to give me that opportunity, I decided I would do it myself.” (Ellis & Goggin 2015 p84).

The existence of participatory media does not excuse mainstream media from creating inclusive content. Examples of meaningful depictions of disabled people include dating show ‘The Undateables’. Boross and Rejinders argue that the focus on intimate relationships in ‘The Undateables’ allows insight into the disabled experience, forcing the viewer to consider their prejudice toward disability (2018).

Source: http://www.cpousa.com/blog/tag/disability/

The lack of representation is felt keenly by the disabled community, as shown in 2014 when ABC’s ‘Ramp Up’ ceased operations. In acts of protest, many disabled individuals posted selfies with tape over their mouths to social media, representing being ‘silenced’ (Ellis & Goggin 2015). Though participatory media allows disabled individuals the ability to self-represent, visibility should occur in both ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ media.

Sources:

• ABS 2015, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2015, Australian Bureau of Statistics, viewed 19/8/2018, <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/C258C88A7AA5A87ECA2568A9001393E8?Opendocument>.
• Boross, B. & Rejinders, S. 2018, Dating the Media: Participation, Voice and Ritual Logic in he Disability Dating Show ‘The Undateables’, Sage Journals, viewed 19/8/2018, <http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/1527476418782184>.
• Ellis, K & Goggin, G (2015): “Disability Media Participation: Opportunities, Obstacles and Politics”, Media International Australia, v154n1, pp 178-88.
• Ross, K. 2001, ‘All ears: radio, reception and discourses of disability’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 419-37.
• Spurgeon, C. & Edmond, M. 2015, ‘Making Media Participatory’, Media International Australia  154, no. 1, pp. 52-6.

Lost In The Matrix

The seemingly random and chronological content that appears on our social media feeds is increasingly being used as a political tool, giving third parties the power to ultimately shape the democratic political landscape. Rather than just being a random generation of content or a chronological timeline of posts, the use of algorithms politicises social media. The tension and divide between the politics of content creators and social media users forces the algorithm to become agonistic or to select which content to place first (Crawford 2015). The process of individual content selection brings the political into the private sphere, ultimately influencing the political beliefs of those who engage in social media. Beer argues that the agonism found within social media algorithms has “…the capacity to shape social and cultural formations and impact directly on individual lives.” (Beer 2009 p.994). For individuals, an initial bias in selecting pages to follow, for example selecting ‘left wing’ news sites such as Buzzfeed or The Guardian, will influence the posts and pages that Facebook suggests to them. In turn, a more singular political viewpoint is created, furthering the political divide (Morgan 2018).

It is important to note the extreme nature and blatant untruths found in online political content. Political content creators use various tactics including clickbait, misleading statistics, or ‘disinformation’ to create exciting content that engages readers. The rise of this ‘fake news’ during the 2016 US Presidential election was spread in part by algorithms. ‘Likes’, ‘comments’ and ‘shares’ generated a snowball effect, promoting fake news to the top of individual news feeds (Persily 2017).

The critiques of algorithms come hand in hand with the demand for further transparency. Crawford describes the lack of demand for transparency as ‘disappointing’ (2015), a sentiment that Diakopoulous mirrors, describing the opacity of algorithms as making them difficult to scrutinise (Diakopolous 2015). The authoritarian nature of algorithmic processes and the lack of clarity in how they operate brings into question the degree of bias within the system (Diakopolous 2015). However, Crawford acknowledges the ‘transparency paradox’ in that revealing an algorithms decision would be undermining the meaningful decisions individuals make about the content they wish to see (Crawford 2015).

Sources:

• Beer, D. 2009, ‘Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious ‘, New Media & Society, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 985-1002.
• Crawford, K (2015): “Can an Algorithm be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics”, Science, Technology and Human Values, v41n2, pp 77-92.
• Diakopoulos, N. 2015, ‘ALGORITHMIC ACCOUNTABILITY-Journalistic investigation of computational power structures’, Digital Journalism, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 398-415.
• Morgan, S. 2018, ‘Fake news, disinformation, manipulation and online tactics to undermine democracy’, Journal of Cyber Policy, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 39-43.
• Persily, N. 2017, ‘The 2016 U.S. Election: Can Democracy Survive the Internet?’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 63-76.

Who Are The Excluded?

The divide between rich and poor extends beyond the physical reality that we live in, following many marginalised groups into the digital realm. Indigenous groups living in isolated areas experience this digital divide more acutely than other groups, culminating to an experience of digital exclusion and disadvantage (Rennie, et al 2016). Rennie et al. cites the largest reason these groups are unable to access the internet is the lack of infrastructure in these isolated areas. The lack of economic viability of these areas, with almost three quarters of all Aboriginal communities having a population less than fifty people (Rennie, et al. 2016), internet providers aren’t driven to provide this infrastructure. Park argues that this divide can only be overcome when third parties, namely the government or not for profit foundations, provide this infrastructure where it is not economically viable (2016). Park describes this phenomenon as an important part of digital inclusion (2016).

The consequences of the digital divide are detrimental to those facing digital exclusion. Worcman argues that the digital divide worsens the real world divide between rich and poor (2015). The inability of isolated Indigenous groups to access online financial and health services disadvantages them, as they have to overcome physical distances in order to access basic services such as Centrelink (Rennie et al. 2016). Physical distance is able to be overcome through the use of digital technology and the internet as it allows access to education, support services, and something as small as online shopping (Park 2015).

Source: http://cardiffstudentmedia.co.uk/quench/features/internet-confessional/

Despite the benefits of digital inclusion, the provision of digital infrastructure does not necessarily lead to adoption by the intended parties. A second level of the digital divide leads to the digital exclusion of isolated indigenous groups, caused by a lack of skill and motivation for digital technologies according to Park (2015). Rennie et al., goes further, citing social logistics as a reason for why some groups adopt digital technologies while others don’t. In the case of isolated Indigenous groups in Australia, the desire and practice of traditional ways of life is certainly a factor. Park cites un-targeted government policies as another cause of the second digital divide (2015), as only providing physical access to technology to these groups does not allow them to access it in reality without the correct skills. The inability of outside groups such as the government to understand the motivations of Aboriginal Australians internet use and to target policies accordingly furthers digital exclusion.

Sources:

• Park, S. 2016, ‘Digital inequalities in rural Australia: A double jeopardy of remoteness and social exclusion’, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 54, pp. 399-407.
• Rennie, E., Hogan, E., Gregory, R., Crouch, A., Wright, A. & Thomas, J. 2016, Internet on the outstation: the digital divide and remote Aboriginal communities, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. ISBN 9789492302076 Available:
• Worcman, K. 2002, ‘Digital Division is Cultural Exclusion. But Is Digital Inclusion Cultural Inclusion?’, D-Lib Magazine, vol. 8, no. 3, 20-7.

Myths and Truths

Source: https://www.cio.co.ke/blogs/kenya-ready-embrace-power-digital-hr/

 

There are a number of myths surrounding young people’s use of technology which are largely assumed to be true in today’s society. The myth of the digital native, an individual born after 1984, as someone who is inherently adept at technology permeates the portrayal of young people in society (Kirsher & De Bruyckere 2017). This portrayal however, is based on the assumption that what children learn through tinkering with popular digital media, such as Facebook, can be applied universally to all digital technology. This assumption ignores the fact that technology systems and social media have different operations and aims.

Despite this, there may be a small piece of truth in the myth of the digital native. Akçayir and Dündar argue that an individual only has the opportunity to become a digital native if they have access to various types of technology (Akçayir & Dündar 2016). Increasingly, digital technology is being taught in classrooms, exposing young people to technologies and allowing them to become digitally literate. From an education perspective, the use of technology in the classroom represents both an educative tool and a necessary skill for children to learn (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes 2009). Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes make the argument that technology offers new teaching methods alongside an essential learning of digital literacy (2009). These opportunities for exposure to different types of technology in young people offers the possibility of a real generation of digital natives in the future.

Source: https://www.initio.eu/blog/2018/2/13/digitalization-in-insurance-myths-and-counter-myths

That is not to say that young people’s use of technology does not come with its challenges. Another myth surrounding the digital native is that of the multi-tasker. Along with the assumption that people born after 1984 are naturally gifted at technology, there is the assumption that these people are able to perform multiple tasks at once. The truth is, rather, that ‘multitasking’ is the ability to quickly switch between tasks, as opposed to completing them at the same time (Kirsher & De Bruyckere 2017). The expectation that individuals can easily swap between tasks is simply untrue, with the outcome being that all tasks are completed at a subpar level. The degree to which young people multitask is extraordinary, with many individuals constantly completing multiple tasks at the same time. The prevalence of digital technology within people’s lives in the form of smart phones, tablets and laptops puts individuals in a position where there are distractions, ultimately leading to the desire to put play alongside work.

 

Sources:

• Akçayır, M., Dündar, H. & Akçay, G. 2016, ‘What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980?’, Computers in Human Behaviour  60, pp. 435-40.
• Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. & Hughes, J.E. 2009, ‘Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now?’, Educational Researcher, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 246-59.
• Kirsher, P.A. & De-Bruyckere, P. 2017, ‘The myths of the digital native and the multitasker’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 67, pp. 135-42.
• Selwyn, N. 2009, ‘The digital native- myth and reality’, Aslib Proceedings, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 364-79.