Friend's blogs

Online news and serendipitous discovery - significant findings from Pew

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:44 GMT

Significant findings on accidental exposure to online news from the latest Pew report:

“To get a sense of the different approaches employed by online news users, and how active or passive online news consumption is, we asked how often online news users:

Go online specifically to get news?
Come across news while they are online doing other things?
Get news forwarded to them through email, automatic alerts and updates, or posts on social networking sites

The answers to these questions reveal that it is most common for online news users to chance upon news while they are online doing other things—what could be called “serendipitous” news consumption. Eight in ten online news users (80%) say this happens at least a few times a week, including 59% who say this happens everyday or almost everyday. Only slightly less common, however, is the hunting and gathering approach to online news consumption. About seven in ten online news users (71%) say they go online specifically to get news at least a few times a week, including almost half (48%) who say they do this everyday or almost everyday.

Meanwhile, a smaller segment of online news users say that news finds them—44% get news forwarded to them through email, automatic updates and alerts, or posts on social networking sites at least a few times a week, which includes 28% who receive news everyday or almost everyday. One quarter of online news users (25%) say they never have news forwarded to them.”

Though the numbers are likely to be a great deal smaller when it comes to specifically political information (something which Pew didn’t examine), it’s good to see some basic data coming through about this aspect of the contemporary web.

I argued in a journal article published last year that increased accidental exposure was potentially one of the most significant—and under-explored—changes associated with web 2.0 and online social networking sites.

This hypothesis also forms the core of the grant application that my colleague, Oliver Heath and I submitted last year to the Leverhulme Trust to study Twitter and the UK election.

We should hear any day now whether we’ve been successful. The wheels turn slowly—and often not at all—in the world of grant funding. Fingers crossed.

Twitter and the emerging viewertariat

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:06 GMT

The Emerging Viewertariat: Explaining Twitter Responses to Nick Griffin’s Appearance on BBC Question Time

Today, Nick Anstead of the University of East Anglia (a former PHD student of mine and affiliated researcher of the New Political Communication Unit), and Ben O’Loughlin (my colleague and Co-Director of the NPCU) publish a working paper dealing with the use of Twitter during the now-notorious episode of BBC Question Time broadcast on 22nd October 2009, which featured BNP leader Nick Griffin.

From the NPCU blog:

“In this preliminary piece they start to analyse a dataset of more than 40,000 tweets related to the broadcast. We theorise that the interaction of a major broadcast events and new media technologies is creating a proportion of the audience who amount to a Viewertariat – commenting, analysing, and discussing what they are watching in real time.

The full paper can be downloaded here, while the press release is below:

In their study Nick Anstead from the University of East Anglia and Ben O’Loughlin of Royal Holloway, University of London, argue that the boundaries between traditional broadcasting and new media are becoming blurred as more and more viewers use Twitter and other social media to comment in public on what they are watching. This is resulting in what the authors term the new ‘Viewertariat’ – a group that responds and gives meaning to events on screen, offering real-time feedback.

The researchers examined viewers’ reactions on Twitter to British National Party leader Nick Griffin’s controversial appearance on Question Time, the flagship BBC debate show. They found that as the episode was being broadcast, viewers were searching the internet for incriminating photos of Mr Griffin and feeding them into the real-time debate about how he was faring. They also found that fellow panellist Bonnie Greer, the playwright and critic, was the audiences’ favourite. A surge of ‘tweets’ – messages of up to 140 characters – occurred when she criticised the historical grounding for BNP policies and when an audience member addressed Griffin as “Dick Griffin”.

Dr Anstead and Dr O’Loughlin’s study, ‘The Emerging Viewertariat: Explaining Twitter Responses to Nick Griffin’s Appearance on BBC Question Time’ , takes the first steps to understanding how viewers of political programmes such as Question Time use technology to comment on broadcasts in real time. With televised debates between the main party leaders to take place in the run-up to the General Election, they believe the emerging Viewertariat raises important questions about how democracy works and public opinion is formed. For example, will public opinion become more divided because people see views they do not agree with, or will it converge as new authorities and viral content come to represent the new received wisdom?

Dr Anstead, lecturer in politics in the School of Political, Social and International Studies at UEA, said: “Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was a significant event because it pointed towards a new way of watching major broadcast events. These forms of real-time participation in political events present an extraordinary opportunity to explore individuals’ political relations, understandings and motivations.

“There is the potential for viewers who aren’t part of the studio audience to participate in these televised political events, though broadcasters must be wary of the usual token gestures where they say “email us your opinion” just to fill time. This will force broadcasters to think about what meaningful participation would look like.”

The authors analysed 43,730 tweets posted before, during, and after the episode of Question Time, which was broadcast from 10.35pm to 11.40pm on October 22 last year. It was the first time a representative of the far right, in the form of MEP Griffin, had been invited to sit on the panel and his appearance drew some eight million viewers, more than three times its normal share.

The study points to a more profound shift in how media organisations and political parties understand their audiences. Instead of surveys and vox pops after a programme or speech is over, the researchers suggest real-time feedback could allow editors or politicians to adapt their messages as they are going out.

They also point to ways in which viewers can influence each other. Instead of sitting at home talking about what they’re watching with friends or family, they can see how the population as a whole is reacting.

Dr O’Loughlin, co-director of the New Political Communication Unit at Royal Holloway, added: “Obviously only a small cross-section of the population use Twitter or blog themselves, but the numbers are still significant and growing. There were over 50,000 live comments on Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. We expect more for the upcoming election debates.”

The most prolific individual tweeted 84 times during the Question Time episode studied. The most vocal 20pc of commentators produced more than half the tweets related to the programme, with seven tweets each. The average number of tweets per minute for the scheduled duration of the broadcast was 673.

The highest number of tweets, 1257, occurred at 23.20, just after Bonnie Greer made comments about BNP policies and Griffin’s academic qualifications. There was also a rise in the number of very positive terms used, in relation to both Greer’s comments and Griffin’s discomfort at them, as well as what is claimed to be his lacklustre performance. The quietest minute happened at 22.36, when only 201 tweets were posted. After the end of the programme the tweets declined, dropping down to under a hundred per minute less than an hour after the broadcast.”

PhD Studentships available at Royal Holloway

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:13 GMT

My Department at Royal Holloway is offering PhD studentships for 2010-11 entry. These also cover doctoral research in the New Political Communication Unit. Please redistribute widely.

Comically relieved [2]

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:57 GMT

I really didn't think there would be anyone even remotely as good as last year's champion. How wrong I was.

Addicted to love

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:27 GMT

The Mountain Man pointed me a few days ago to this PBS documentary. As soon as I clicked the link, I knew it was the kind of thing I would enjoy watching. And about 17 minutes in, the camera turned to South Korea. Not that I was waiting, but I wasn't surprised either. Recently, works on this topic invariably include the country, picturing it as a collective of geeks.

A couple of examples off the top of my head:

CNN's Eye on South Korea (2007)
Ahonen and O'Reilly's Digital Korea (2007)
The Gadget Show's East vs West episode (2009)

This time, a considerable portion of time was dedicated to a Web addiction rehab centre – something briefly mentioned on this blog too. If you wondered how such institutions actually work, this programme is a taster.

Looking at those digitally addicted youngsters at the institution made me think about what online technology means to myself. For all my life, I have stayed away, consciously and successfully, from anything addictive because I know too well that I am weak and impressible. Only two things I have failed greatly are chocolate and the Internet.

While I moved out from the student halls and in to this new place last summer, my Facebook status (updated when I went for miles to a local library) was:

YL is looking for free wi-fi like a starved wolf. (14 August 2009 at 16:06)

I was even told I looked pale, which in itself was a worrying sign.

Bill at the OII has been developing the notion of “Internet as an experience technology”. In a nutshell, this means that “[a]s people get closer to the Internet, they tend to gain, or learn, an educated level of cybertrust”, confident expectation in the Internet and related ICTs (Dutton & Shepherd, 2006: 446). When I was attending the SDP2006, he presented the idea in its earlier form to us too. Usually, when I listen to a talk, I don't comment. No other reason; I'm simply too shy for that. At best, I might muster all my courage and ask a question. But his Measuring Trust in the Internet was one of those rare cases where I walked up to the presenter after the talk and said I had an alternative hypothesis: it's not that users will form more positive attitudes as they become more experienced with it, but that when they can't afford not to use the technology in question (heavily), they will describe it more positively anyway, at least to ease their cognitive dissonance.

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but myself. In my case, even though I admit my addiction, I still can't do much about it because what I am addicted to is also a professional necessity for me. Some say it's a blessing to be able to make a living out of what one is passionate about. Others say professional activity and personal interests are not to be mixed so that one can have a balanced life. I have always been with the former standpoint and been grateful. I hope I can stay that way.

Buzz Settings Page Goes Live in Gmail, Allows Total Disabling [Updates]

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:12 GMT

Buzz Settings Page Goes Live in Gmail, Allows Total Disabling [Updates]:

A resounding victory—the latest in a long history of online mobilizations by privacy activists that I document in one of the chapters in my book “Internet Politics.”

Newspapers Call For Ban On BBC iPhone Apps

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:56 GMT

Newspapers Call For Ban On BBC iPhone Apps

This Day In Tech: Feb. 16, 1978: Bulletin Board Goes Electronic

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:40 GMT

This Day In Tech: Feb. 16, 1978: Bulletin Board Goes Electronic

Capitalist takeover of democracy

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:42 GMT

Anecdote One:

Came across at Kwang-suk sunbae's blog the following message from Dorothy Kidd.

From: Dorothy Kidd [mailto:kiddd@usfca.edu]

Dear friends:

Lee Myung-bak's New Right government in S. Korea is taking disturbing steps to limit freedom of expression, shut down independent media, and defund media, arts, and cultural organizations across the country. The latest blow is an attack on public media center MediAct, which has played a key part in the democratization of Korea's media system since the end of the dictatorship, trained thousands of people in media production, and developed many successful media policy proposals to open up Korea's mediascape to diverse voices.

Please take action now to express international support for MediAct.

[…] (Full text here.)

Dorothy Kidd
Associate Professor
Department of Media Studies
University of San Francisco
2130 Fulton St.
San Francisco
94117-1080
415-422-5061
kiddd@usfca.edu

First Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn (and 171 others signing a petition against the Korean government on the Human Rights day last December) and now Dorothy Kidd. I can't imagine how pathetic we must have looked lately – rolling backwards and backwards in ‘democratic consolidation'.

Anecdote Two:

There's a Korean Website called DDanzi. It's a political satire site. You could picture something like the Onion. Quite different stylistically, but they both seem to take similar directions.

Initially setting out to mock the largest conservative daily Chosun Ilbo in 1998, DDanzi has developed into an online news outlet with a liberal perspective, employing an extremely informal – and often deliberately vulgar – language. Having said that, it has been dormant for the past few years, as it was financially struggling. Now it is in full swing. Fuller than ever. Not that it has eventually come up with a viable business model or anything but that people behind it are activists at heart and the current political climate of the country has waken them up, so to say.

Their comeback is marked by two projects among a few others. One is the DDanzi Idiot Award for those who have *stupidly* stood up against the power-holders and got crushed. The other is the We-Will-Pay-Your-Fines scheme. How this scheme works is that the entire profit they make by selling T-shirts and mouse pads on their Website is given to those who got fined for having participated in the candlelight demonstrations against American beef imports in 2008.

My focus today is on the latter. Some of you might not find it impressive, as selling goodies with political logos for fundraising is the oldest story in the book. I believe the significance lies, again, in the context in which this is happening. To illustrate, quoted below is a passage from one of their recent articles (about full body scanners coming to Korean airports).

As you all know, I have been bombarding our dear president and the government with harsh criticisms. All this time, I was pretending that they wouldn't be bothered with what a “nobody” like me says, but frankly, I guess I had this nagging feeling deep down within myself. If they wanted, teaching a “nobody” a lesson would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it?

Moreover, I might just manage if things got physical (I might even look cool!), but like in the case of the Candlelight protests [in 2008], if they fined me instead, say, a few thousand pounds, it certainly would be a strain for me, who is as broke as the unemployed, but I would be too embarrassed to say so to anyone.

Of course, I would never ever choose the earlier physically violent forms of oppression over fines or any other penalties, and I understand the writer didn't mean that literally either. The point I am trying to make here is this.

Back to Anecdote One:

What I find particularly demoralising in Dorothy Kidd's message is the word “defund”. The Korean government insists that it is an unfair exaggeration to call what they are doing political oppression, as it is admittedly not the most obvious kind. But threatening people financially and making people feel embarrassed about their financial (in)capacity? That's just …. cheap. Perhaps this is my Confucian self speaking, but to me, it is a disgrace.

You call it a capitalist democracy? I would call it a capitalist takeover of democracy.

Google Buzz 'breaks privacy laws' says watchdog

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:34 GMT

Google Buzz 'breaks privacy laws' says watchdog:

EPIC complains to the FTC.