Yesterday, I came across an interesting CNN iReport.

Following an alleged racially motivated encounter with a police officer in Marion County,South Carolina, black actors Cherie Johnson and Dennis White decided to share their story via the mass media.

On Sept. 22, the two African-American actors alleged a Caucasian police officer approached the couple as they were observing a cotton field alongside the roadway near Myrtle Beach, SC.

The officer, identified as S. Barfield, proceeded to wrongfully harass the couple by questioning their activity , accusing them of smuggling drugs, asking to search their vehicle, placing them in handcuffs, all without justifiable probable cause, according to the iReport.

In the iReport, the couple attempted to appeal to the public for help spreading their message.

"At no point in history is this justified, especially not in this day and age. The equality that our forefathers fought so hard to obtained does not  stretched across the board. South Carolina has been known to treat African-Americans as second-class citizens. It’s not right and it’s not fair. I will not stop until this incident is made public and that racist cop, Barfield, is reprimanded and punished. That was one of the worse days of my life and I plan on making it one of his as well. If you are reading this, please share, please discuss, please inform your family, friends, co-workers and associates that “Officer S. Barfield” in Marion County, SC is a racist cop and his punishment is imminent. We will not stand for this injustice anymore!"

The couple's call for activism on behalf of them, and presumably other African-Americans who are tired of being victimized by racism, exemplifies the growing trend of outreach to the public sphere using the Internet.

This public sphere is the topic for this week's readings.

This week we were assigned to read "Communicating Global Activism:Strengths and vulnerabilities of
networked politics" by W. Lance Bennett; "The Logic of Collective Action:Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics" by W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg; "Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany" by Jürgen Gerhards and Mike S. Schäfer; and "The virtual sphere : The internet as a public sphere” by Zizi Papacharissi.

All of these readings provided similar context on the notion of a public sphere, particularly its relationship with the usage of the Internet for political and activism uses.

According to Papacharissi “The internet and its surrounding technologies hold the promise of reviving the public sphere; however, several aspects of these new technologies simultaneously curtail and augment that
potential.”

She continued, “First, the data storage and retrieval capabilities of internet-based technologies infuse political discussion with information otherwise unavailable. At the same time, information access inequalities and new media literacy compromise the representativeness of the virtual sphere. Second, internet-based technologies enable discussion between people on far sides of the globe, but also frequently fragmentize political
discourse. Third, given the patterns of global capitalism, it is possible that Internet-based technologies will adapt themselves to the current political culture, rather than create a new one.”

She also posed the question: “Does cyberspace present a separate alternative to, extend, minimize, or ignore the public  sphere?”

 I say in the long run, cyberspace will not only ultimately extend he public sphere, but it will also enhance it in ways we have yet to fathom. 

The Internet, jump drives and other memory equipment all make it possible for people to retrieve information to which they may not have had previous access.

Someone could easily save a political PowerPoint to a jump drive and give a presentation to inner city youth or another person who is  looking to better educate themselves on local politics could easily pull up the minutes for the city council’s meeting last week. 

All of these opportunities are made possible by cyberspace and new technologies.

Understandably, some may be concerned about a knowledge gap between the haves and the have-nots.

However, we can hope and work toward making information accessible to all.

 Papacharissi brings up the point that the Internet and related technologies have created a new public space for politically oriented conversation; but whether this public space transcends to a public sphere is not up to the technology itself.

Technology is only useful if people make it useful. 

Facebook and Twitter create a public space for public gathering online.

However, it is up to its users to direct the conversation from who posted the most delicious picture of last night’s dinner or which sports team will win the game on Sunday to a conversation more political or activist in
nature, creating a public sphere.

“It is important to determine whether the internet and its surrounding technologies will truly revolutionize the political sphere or whether they will be adapted to the current status quo, especially at a time when the public is demonstrating dormant political activity and developing growing cynicism towards politics” (Cappella and Jamieson, 1996, 1997; Fallows,1996; Patterson, 1993, 1996).


I disagree this will happen.  From my observations, it seems the usage of technology to revolutionize he political sphere is only growing, not remaining dormant despite alleged waning political
activity.

On the contrary, it is seemingly political activity, making it easier for people to engage in discourse in the public sphere as well as appealing and educating the masses like never before. 
 

In discussing the public sphere, Bennett and Segerberg detail the difference between connective and collective actions. 

While collective action “emphasizes the problems of getting individuals to contribute to the collective endeavor that typically involves seeking some sort of public good that may be better attained through forging common cause,” connective action networks are “typically far more individualized and technologically organized sets of processes that result in action without the requirement of collective identity framing or the levels of organizational resources required to respond effectively to opportunities.”

 I would categorize the aforementioned story about the black actors and their CNN iReport as a collective action because they are seeking to connect with a larger mass of fed up people to protest against the wrongdoings of racist police everywhere.


Meanwhile, if the couple opted to forgo contacting the media about the case and instead just reported the incident to the police chief’s office and pursued any subsequent investigations or reform that may have
occurred as a result of their perseverance, I would have considered it to be a connective action.
 
Furthermore, Gerhards and Schäfer break down the fora within the public sphere.  Before discussing these fora, I want to share the definition of fora. 
 
The Oxford dictionary defines fora as the plural of forums, but in ancient roman cities was the public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.


I think Gerhard and Schäfer’s word choice of fora was not coincidental. 

Forums are like public squares where ideas and discourse areexchanged.

 However, I digress. 

 The authors divide the fora of the public sphere into three categories:

 1.    Encounter public sphere- consists of everyday, face-to-face communication between
citizens. This type of communication takes place on streets, in parks, pubs, etc.


2.   Public events- including town hall meetings, public lectures, or protest rallies. They
have at least a minimal organizational structure, and specialists and opinion
leaders participate in this forum and may structure and dominate
communication.

 3.  The mass media- They possess full-fledged technical and organizational infrastructure and
are dominated by specialists like journalists, experts and collective actors.

When analyzing how technology and the Internet impact the public sphere, it is important to remember these categories.  

These days, face-to-face communication has moved from the streets or in parks, to social media. 

Additionally, public events such as town hall meetings or protest rallies are frequently advertised or broadcast online.  

Regardless of the good and bad aspects, the public sphere has moved online.

 I would certainly consider the mass media to be a forum of collective actors.


Mass media professionals initiate public conversations through webpages or even still through print letters to the
editor.


 News stories set the new agenda for the day, sparking conversations.

 The act of reporting sparks a forum of conversation.


For example, during my time working as a reporter at the Victoria Advocate, I helped start the Hispanic Reader Advisory Group. 
 
We invited a diverse group of Hispanics in our readership area to meet with us every other month. 

During these conversations, we solicited feedback on the stories about Hispanics that we were already working on as well as solicited new story ideas about the Hispanic community. 

This got the public conversation going and resulted in some really great work by the newspaper both in print and
digitally.

In turn, the conversation spread beyond our seven-county readership area.

Many of my stories were picked up by the Associated Press and broadcast nationwide, expanding the conversation to a larger audience who offered comments. 

Meanwhile, Bennett’s second article explored some of the ways in which digital communication networks may be changing the political game in favor of resource-poor players who, in many cases, are experimenting with political
strategies outside of conventional national political channels such as elections and interest processes.

 Again, I think digital communication has changed the game, to some extent leveling the playing field in political
communication.

Current President Barack Obama is a product of this revolution.

 He changed the game in the 2008 election, not only targeting younger voters, but also by taking part of his campaign online. 
 
 His campaigners sent targeted emails, became active on social media networks, maintained an informative website, broadcasted speeches and town hall meetings. 


President Obama exemplified how expanding the public sphere online can result in political change.


In the spirit of starting a political conversation in this cyberspace leg of the public sphere, I pose the following questions about the public sphere for class discussion or discussion with my online blog
readers:

 1. Do you think it will ever be possible to include everyone in this new public sphere that reaches online?


2.  Do you think the inclusion of cyberspace and social media into the public sphere
actually lends itself to a less social way of life?


3.  At this point, should society even continue to work on improving traditional foras of
the public sphere or refocus its energies on bringing the public sphere completely digital?

“15-Year-Old Education Expert Jaden Smith Urges Kids To Drop Out Of School.”

This News One headline greeted me on Sept. 17., as I scrolled through my Facebook time line.

Curious about the latest nonsense spewing from an out-touch celebrity’s mouth; I clicked the link to read the whole
story.

The story read as  follows:

“Jaden Smith…the son of actors Will and Jada, reportedly attacked the U.S. educational system in a Twitter rant relayed to his nearly 4.6 million followers about how society would be better off “if everybody in the world
dropped out of school.” Now concerned parents are in an uproar because the pint-sized actor and his “too cool for school ‘tude” is reportedly influencing his school-aged followers, according to US Magazine” (NewsOne,2013).

Smith also tweeted, “School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth” [sic].

Annoyed by Smith’s comments, I voiced my opinion in the way most of my generation does these days—via social media. 
 
I shared the news link on my Facebook wall with the comment “I support freedom of speech, but some people, in this instance Jaden Smith, should exercise their rights far less often than others.”

My post received a couple of likes and one inbox message from a Facebook friend who seemed open to Smith’s  point-of-view.

He wrote, “If you knew what he knows...you might think differently. Or you might change your curriculum.”

Although not intentional, my original post created an open dialogue. 

I was not relegated to only discussing the issue with people I could talk to in person or via telephone. 
 
Yet, it did not take fliers posted around town promoting a community forum to discuss the issue either.

All it took was a post on social media. 

This scenario partly exemplifies this week’s topic for #mc7019—social networks.

This week we read Clay Shirky’s book “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.”

By telling the stories of a couple of individuals, Shirky proves “for the first time in human history, our communications tools support the group conversation and group action” (Shirky, 2008).

“Gathering a group of people and getting them to act used to require significant resources, giving the world’s institutions a kind of monopoly on group effort. Now, though, the tools for sharing and cooperating on a global scale have been placed in the hands of individual citizens” (Shirky, 2008).

Going back to my personal Facebook example, it is easier than ever to start the group conversation, and if necessary commence group action. 
 
The story of the stolen sidekick was particularly interesting, proving the following points:

There is “new leverage for old behaviors” (Shirky, 2008).

“When we change the way we communicate, we change society” (Shirky, 2008).

“Forming groups has gotten a lot easier” (Shirky, 2008).

In 2013, Shirky’s arguments are even stronger.

People can sign petitions, create groups on Facebook, start a blog on Facebook or even tweet to a specific hash tag on Twitter.

Interested persons can even put their money where the mouth is in the name of justice and change through websites like Kick Starter and others.

New technologies have “collapsed” the costs of forming groups for collective action (Shirky, 2008).

As Shirky discusses, these changes in the way people can organize help fight the dire conclusions drawn by Robert Putnam in his book ““Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.”

The main idea of Robert Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” is “we Americans need to reconnect with one another” (p. 28). He supports this argument with the social capital theory, which asserts social networks do have value (p. 19). Social capital refers to “social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19).

In other words, Putnam may be right in saying people no longer support causes and other people through costly memberships to clubs or associations, by attending weekly meetings, or even by casting their vote at the polls.

They are, however, signing online petitions and creating online grassroots campaigns.

In many cases, these online conversations translate to real-life meet ups.

Tweet up and sites like MeetUp allow people who share similar interests to meet up in person, bridging the gap between online and offline organizing.


This new way of organizing has pros and cons.


While the relatively low costs, ability to reach large audiences and simplicity of starting a conversation  all weigh
in as pros, future costs, unverified sources and disorganization all prove problematic.

Social media and website creators have gotten hip to this growing online movement. Everyone is trying to make a
buck.

Facebook now charges to promote posts and to contact people with whom you share no mutual friends and the costs of website hosting and domain name registries are steadily growing, creating a barrier to entry for some.

Also the skyrocketing cost of equipment such as smart phones, tablets and laptops that make engaging in online organizing easier, also remain barriers to entry for some. 

Furthermore, the lack of oversight in some cases can lead to a free for all of hate speech and wrong information.

Additionally, the question of “Who is a journalist?” arises here.

Traditional media is complementary to more traditional means of organizing.

Clubs could inform members of upcoming meetings through the local media’s community sections.

Also if an issue arose, people could organize about the issue based on facts from the news story.

In this world of bloggers with no credentials or training, people may be prompted to act based on incorrect information, wasting time and possibly invalidating their mission.

While there are these bad instances, there are times when everyone’s ability to activate a
newsroom from their hip proves to be a great benefit.

People can organize by tweeting from the gas station or posting a picture to Instagram while attending a college football game.


This is how people organize without organizations in 2013.


I think Shirky’s book was well-thought out and his ideas well-developed.  Because the book
was written in 2008, though, I am left with these questions:

 1. Do you think online organization will grow to completely erase more traditional ways of organizing?
2. What can we do to ensure online organization remains a viable way or organizing?

 

Works Cited



Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.


Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing
without organizations. New York: Penguin
Press.

 The picture below is of my dog Sadie. She is a little over  1-year-old. I uploaded a picture of her to Instagram and included hashtagging to fall in line with other pictures of cute dogs. Enjoy!

Tweeting before Breakfast


About 9:30 a.m., the sounds of dogs whining woke me up from a restful slumber. After sleepily getting up and taking them outside to handle their business, I hopped back in bed, grabbed my phone and commenced my normal
morning routine—checking out the news of the morning. 
 
My first stops included @Facebook, @Twitter and @Instagram. Before stopping my online surfing to write this blog post, I learned @FloydMayweather (#TMT) won the boxing match against
@caneloOficial; it is Mexican Independence Weekend; and a North Carolina policeman shot and killed a former FAMU football player. Additionally, I followed a couple of new people on Twitter including @blackpolitics; @AEJMCjobs; and even one of my former bosses at the @Vicadvocate , @BeckyJCooper.

For some, my activities this morning equated to calculating the propellant mass flow rate of the descent propulsion system of the lunar module.Meanwhile, others can relate exactly, as they likely follow the same behaviors themselves. This difference of familiarity with social media, however, partly exemplifies the digital divide. 

What the Literature Says

A simple definition of the #DigitalDivide is the variance between those who have ready access to computers and the Internet and those who do not. In my opinion, it goes hand in hand with the knowledge gap theory; whereas the attempt to  improve people’s life with information via the mass media results in an increased gap between people of lower and higher socioeconomic status (University of Twente, n.d.).

This digital divide is both a topic of scholarly research and practical troubleshooting. This week, @windels assigned  #MC 7019 to read “Internet skills and the digital divide” by Alexander van Deursen and Jan van Dijk, “The Digital Divide” by Everett M. Rogers and “The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet” by Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff.

Although these writings were written in 2010, 2011 and 2010, respectively, their arguments remain relevant.When discussing the digital divide, I think it is important to remember this division does not stop solely at the haves and have-nots of computer ownership. Effective navigation of web sites and search engines and even social media and new applications also creates division among the masses.Additionally, inequality in the ownership of tablets and smart phones also creates division.

By mid-2001, an estimated 400 million people used the Internet, according to Rogers.Today, this number has increased to more than 2 billion, according to an article by www.thecultureist.com . Rogers cites the
following as reasons for the digital divide (circa 2001):

1.  Lack of telephone and computer access to the Internet

2. Demographic characteristics

3. The educational divide

4.  The socio-economic-divide

5.  The learning divide

Understandably, those who lack the education and equipment will likely drag behind those who do. These effect differ throughout various demographics including race, age, gender and even physical disabilities. If “people with low levels of internet skills fail to find information online while an increasing amount relevant to daily life become easiest to access on the Internet, they become increasingly disadvantaged” (van Deursen & van Dijk,2010).

While less educated populations have always been “socially disadvantaged,” their lives become more endangered as they face exclusion from all the “benefits the Internet now has to offer, ranging from economic opportunities such as privileged access to jobs, health opportunities such as better diets” (van Deursen & van Dijk,2010). 
 
Rogers offers these strategies for closing the
divide:

 1.   Provide public access points

 2.   Fitting Internet/Web Content to audience
needs

 3.  New means of providing Internet access—ex. Cell phones,
tablets

Many people have implemented these changes and more. Public libraries allow most anyone access to the Internet; some schools have issued laptops to their students, with which they can access the Internet through Wi-Fi;  more people have purchased smart phones with web capabilities;  and most companies, news outlets and government agencies have formatted their content to online forcing adoption by the masses. Newspapers in Education
(NIE) has also worked to address this knowledge gap. These days, there is a concerted effort to go digital and learn
digital.

These 2013 statistics from Pew Research Center show some of the effects of these changes:
     
Computer Ownership: Some 72 percent of Latinos say they own a desktop or laptop computer,  compared with 83 percent of whites.  Among blacks, 70 percent are computer owners.
       
Cellphone ownership: Fully 86 percent of Latinos say they own a cellphone, a share similar to that of whites (84 percent) and blacks (90 percent).

Smartphone Ownership: Among adults, Latinos are just as likely as whites or blacks to own a smartphone—49 percent versus 46 percent and 50 percent respectively.
        
Going  Online from a Mobile Device: Latino internet users are more likely than white Internet users to say they go online using a mobile device—76 percent versus 60 percent. Meanwhile, Latino and black internet users are equally likely to access the internet from a mobile device—76 percent and 73 percent respectively.
       
Social Networking Site Use: Among internet users, similar shares of Latinos (68 percent), whites (66 percent) and blacks (69 percent) say they use social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook at least occasionally.

Problems

Even if everyone had access to the Internet, the enormous amount of information available also creates a divide. Because there is so much information out there, some people may feel intimidated and choose to avoid the
Internet if possible, holding on to information gathering techniques of yesteryear.  Others who choose to brave the Internet frontier, may get confused and frustrated in determining fact from fiction or real website from spam or virus-ridden programs

I’m reminded of John Milton, a poet and pamphleteer, who developed the foundations of the marketplace of ideas theory. The "marketplace of ideas" explains the need for freedom of expression based on a comparison to
the economic concept of a free market. This marketplace provides a figurative space of public discourse where the truth can emerge from a diversity of ideas competing in a free, unhampered environment.

The term “self-righting principle” is often used when referencing Milton’s early ideas (Altshcull, 1990). The term is defined as the “idea that truth needs no champion in the arena of that marketplace that truth wins even without the authority of someone in power” (Altshcull, 1990).

Applications—Literally and Figuratively

As I mentioned earlier, I venture daily into social media.  This journey, though, is not always taken on through the vessel of the World Wide Web. I, like many others, use smart phone apps rather than always going the more traditional routes of www.Facebook.com or www.Twitter.com. 
 
One of the most important shifts in the digital world has been” the move from the wide-open Web to semi-closed platforms that use the Internet for transport but not the browser for display” (Anderson & Wolff, 2010). It is “driven primarily by the rise of the iPhone model of mobile computing, and it’s a world Google can’t crawl, one where HTML doesn’t rule” (Anderson & Wolff,  2010).These apps make accessing some of our favorite web locations
easier and fasters.

Other than social media apps, people can bank using PayPal or other banking applications. They can also lock their car; play interactive games such as Words with Friends and Ruzzle; or even face time with Skype and Tango.These apps eliminate the need to do everything via the traditional desktop or laptop computer. However, they are only available through smart phones or tablets. 

This potentially widens the digital divide, making it impossible for those without these devices to access them. Companies can produce content easier on these platforms and make more money than traditional routes.

Sure, you can still access more of the important apps through traditional computers, but the world is heading to the new frontier of apps. For many, the need for a traditional computer is no longer. Although, I, a corrective lenses wearer, enjoy my 17.5 inch laptop screen.

Final Thoughts

I remember a few years ago, the term mobile journalist was still a fairly new concept.

Yet, before I left the newsroom in 2012 to return to the full-time world of academia, my newsroom was transitioning to all reporters using iPads complete with apps for reading news; writing news stories; shooting and editing photos and videos; and more importantly, sharing that catered to our online news consumers.

The paper copy of the newspaper was still available, but the push was for digital. This is the wave of the future.I wonder what the scholars of this week’s readings would say about this.

Going forward, I’m left with these questions:

What will be the next big thing in the digital divide?

Will the divide widen in the future?

With cell phone providers creating monopolies and raising prices on plans, will the digital divide increase as consumers can no longer afford the price of being digitally included?

In some cases, the government provides cell phones plans to low income households. Should the government provide these people with smart phones and regulate the industry for all consumers?
 
Be sure to check out this infographic below by Sean Valant. It's an excellent pictorial of Internet usage today.


Lastly, feel free to share your thoughts with me!

 
Works Cited

Altschull, J. H. (1990).p. 58. From Milton to McLuhan: The ideas
behind American journalism. New York: Longman.


Anderson, C., & Wolff, M. (2010, August 17). The Web Is Dead.
Long Live the Internet | Wired Magazine | Wired.com. Retrieved from
  http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/


Culture-ist (2013, May 9). How Many People Use The Internet? More
Than 2 Billion... Retrieved from
  http://www.thecultureist.com/2013/05/09/how-many-people-use-the-internet-more-than-2-billion-infographic/


Lopez, M., Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Patten, E. (2013, March
7). Closing the Digital Divide: Latinos and Technology Adoption | Pew Hispanic
Center. Retrieved from
  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/03/07/closing-the-digital-divide-latinos-and-technology-adoption/


Rogers, E. (2011, March). The Digital Divide. Retrieved September
15, 2013, from
http://con.sagepub.com/content/7/4/96


Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2013, from
  http://www.twitter.com


University of Twente (n.d.). Knowledge Gap. Retrieved from
  http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Media,%20Culture%20and%20Society/knowledge_gap.doc/


Valant, S. (2013, September 2). Infographic: A Day In The Life Of
The Internet | HostGator Web Hosting Blog | Gator Crossing. Retrieved  15, from
  http://blog.hostgator.com/2013/05/02/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-internet/


Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2010, December). Internet
skills and the digital divide. Retrieved from
  http://moodle2.lsu.edu/pluginfile.php/590877/mod_resource/content/1/internet%20skills%20and%20digital%20divide.pdf

Hello!

 I'm back!  You may have noticed my absence from the blogosphere over the last couple of months,  I truly meant to keep up with blogging, but things didn't happen as planned. Let me catch quickly catch you up on what you missed:
homework, final exams, summer vacation, class, and more summer vacation--which brings us to now!

Last month, I began the second year of my media and public affairs doctoral program here at Louisiana State University. 

This semester, I'm enrolled in #MC7019: Digital Media; Theory, Application and Effects.

As part of my assignments for this course, I will have to blog about our weekly readings.

I actually like the idea of blogging about scholarly topics, as I'm always interested in marrying both the practical and academic sides of journalism.

You may have noticed the blog I posted today.
 
That is the first installment of my weekly blogging assignments, focusing on the history and politics of information.

If you enjoy academic analysis and musing of abstract and practical topics stemming from the intersection of mass communication and politics, feel free to follow along and share your thoughts with me.

I also plan to start blogging more on non-academic topics of interests, but as always, we'll have to see how that goes.

Nonetheless, you'll have something from me to read at least once a week.


Enjoy!

Although the year was 2003, it seems like just yesterday I was a college sophomore with my very first laptop computer. 
 

It was a black Toshiba with a CD/DVD drive and USB ports, in which I could plug my portable floppy disk
reader.

I didn’t have  high-speed Internet; instead I mostly utilized the dreadfully slow dial up in my on campus apartment.


Fast forward to today, I’m on my third laptop, which happens to also be a Toshiba, downloading PDF’s of this week’s readings and writing my thought blog.


All the while, I’m mindful of saving everything on my USB flash drive.


I was thrust on this walk down memory lane while reflecting on today’s readings about the history and politics of information. 

Long before 2003, society, me included, was concerned with information quantification, collection, storage and management. 

As Alex Wright discusses in “Glut,” it’s in our human nature to be concerned with such things.

As of 2007, human beings produced more than five exabytes of information a year, according to Wright (Wright, 2007).  

By now, I am sure this number has exponentially increased as society has devised newer forms of information collection and storage. 
 
More importantly, however, society remains dedicated to possessing information.

After 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica went out of print, bowing down to the pressures of online.

The last print version is the 32-volume 2010 edition, weighing  129 pounds and including new entries on global warming and the Human Genome  Project (Bosman, 2012).

Since then, the long-trusted information source focuses primarily on its online encyclopedias and educational curriculum for schools. 

This exemplifies the theses of both Wright and Gleick and the ever-changing “evolutionary drama” (Wright,
2007).

I agree our hierarchies and individual networks partly precipitate these changes.

Personal memory purchases for our computers show our constant desire for more information.

Nowadays, consumers purchase hard drives with storage for at least one terabyte, which calculates to 8.79609e12 bits, and can cost about $80.

Meanwhile, organizations such as the National Security or Central Intelligence Agencies may use multiple petabytes.

One petabyte equals 1024 terabytes, which can cost about 39,933,
according to my calculations.

Information can be quantified and it costs.

Evolutions in information, particularly in the realm of digital media, bring ongoing “social, cultural and political transformations” (Wright,
2007). 

I found Winner’s article particularly informative and interesting.

However, I wished he would have given more examples to help with explaining his points.

From my understanding, I agree artifacts do contain political properties, some straightforward others inherent. 
 
We often overlook these political characteristics out of a lack of concern or ignorance of their presence. 

Realizing and acknowledging these political characteristics can be a bit like taking the red pill in “The Matrix,” disintegrating our previous reality.

Voting machines hold obvious political properties. 
 
However, photo identification cards hold more inherent political properties. 

Both of these artifacts contain deal with information.

Voting machines were created to tally votes for political candidates during elections.

They are clearly political in nature. 
 
Normally, photo identification card such as a driver’s license or state ID would be apolitical. 

A driver’s license grants one the ability to drive while other forms of photo
identification provide a cosigned face with a name. 

These days, though, not having a valid ID can disenfranchise voting rights.
 
Some states have proposed laws stopping those who do not possess what the government officials deem a proper photo ID can be stopped from voting.

These days, social media, television, and even access to information through programs
such as Newspapers in Education (NIE) all hold political characteristics. 

As we continue in this ongoing information and technological revolution, I foresee more artifacts gaining political characteristics or being specifically created with political attributes in mind.

Friedman and Nisenbaum’s article illustrate three important categories of bias in computer systems: preexisting, technical, and emergent. 

This article complements Winner’s thoughts -- things are not always as they seem.

Biases infiltrate computer systems to their very core, even going as far as programming language. 

While all computers understand assembly, the computer language, no computer is built to
understand all programming languages such as ASP.Net or C++. 

The programming language understood by a particular computer can be affected, 

This is further exemplified by Macs and PCs operating under different programming
languages.

All the readings point to the fact that the only constant in information and technology is change, which will surely happen as society, culture and politics continue to influence their evolution. 

References


Bosman, J.
  (2012, March 3). After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the
Presses. Retrieved from
  mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/


Gleick, J.
  (2011, March 18). Excerpt - The Information - By James Gleick -
NYTimes.com. Retrieved from
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/books/review/excerpt-the-information-by-james-gleick.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&

Alex Wright,(2007),Glut,Ch. 1
Langdon Winner,(1980), "Do Artifacts have Politics?" Daedalus, 109 (1),121-136
Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum (1996),"Bias in Computer Systems," ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3),330-347