Text without Context Response

1. This society has become accustomed to instantaneous answers which is shown with the growing popularity of Twitter and YouTube. These fairly new media bring in audiences because they are more willing to cut to the chase with their content. People now prefer to tune into information that is immediately available, rather than something that is analyzed, and carefully thought out. For example, instead of reading an entire news story a person is now more likely to look for a sound clip, sound bite, or short blurb. This makes it harder for individuals to develop an opinion on their own. When watching a play or movie, people will text or tweet, and they won’t give the show a chance to win them over. This pre-judging then enters the cyber world for others to adopt as their own opinions. Even scholars are guilty of falling prey to this simplified way of researching. Instead of sifting through stacks of literature, they might only search online.

2. The term “cyberkalnization” refers to the division in the World Wide Web into subgroups. People now can subscribe to only receive the specialized news that they like to hear about, and exclude everything else from getting to them. With automatically updated feeds, people are avoiding having any serendipitous encounters that might infiltrate their thoughts on what they are already use to. I am also somewhat guilty of this myself. I follow only those with opinions that I already have myself on Twitter. I know personally of people who receive Yahoo news feeds that focus only on entertainment news or sports news because they aren’t concerned with any other news. In a way, this specifically engineered filtering is beneficial for you if you only want what you’re use to. It bypasses all the extra news so that you don’t have to sift through it yourself.


3. These trends might take away from the audience that usually tuned into authors, composers, and filmmakers because if people can get a concise yet entertaining piece of their work, they won’t be inclined to look for more. The re-produced work, to them, is just as good as the original work and possibly better because you can get it in smaller portions and have it include the parts you like. These creators of original works will have their thoughts recycled, and even though it’ll be works without context, the truth is that people aren’t craving context anymore.


4. Appropriation art means giving credit to any part of a piece that was inspired by something else. This is a way to copyright, in some ways, an artist’s idea and to make sure that credit is given to a creator. The author argues that everything, especially words are owned by “owned by our entire culture,” and with a little revision and slight credit, it is okay to duplicate this. As Journalism major, I partially agree with this because I know I would not want my ideas to be copied in any way, unless full credit was being given to me. However, I think that when it comes to other forms of art, outside of written works, it gets more difficult to give credit.


5. The idea of an audience is described as archaic because we live in a time when the audience’s opinion doesn’t seem to matter. In a 2005 issue of Wired magazine the information we are given is described as “an endless, recombinant, and fundamentally social process generated by countless hours of creative product.” What the audience is receiving is a “mash up” of the same ideas from years worth of fandom that are just repackaged. Our online media is a culture of reaction from other thoughts without any new actions of our own. Most online responses are driven by the sphere of old media.