Week 2: Lauren Marie Paterson – Witness, Engage Media, Digital Culture

After watching  “Witness Your Environment,” by Kelly Matheson, exploring the WITNESS home page and YouTube Channel, and browsing the Engage Media site, it seems apparent that one of the major themes tying organizations such as these to similar projects like Scribe Video is the element of user-generated content.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of user-generated content is: “any data or media that is contributed by individual users of a website.”

Matheson made a very strong statement regarding the power of multimedia platforms and their ability to propel social action: “Video puts the human into human rights.” The WITNESS dream of putting cameras in the hands of activists is now as simple as owning a smart phone, making it easier than ever for individuals to share and contribute content with the help of the Internet. I was especially happy to see how-to videos on the site! Watching “How To Film A Protest” was a helpful visual guide for even those with video experience.

I did see a few issues regarding technical concerns, especially with the Engage Media site. A few videos seemed to be basic b-roll footage, sound effects and still images with little to offer as far as story or aesthetics are concerned, (Do You Know What’s in Your Water?) while others such as Indigenous Peoples: Guardians of Indonesian Forest offered compelling interviews with the indigenous populace regarding the effects of rapid deforestation.

There seemed to be a large range of quality on the Engage Media site, which might ultimately be improved by future funding or investment in a more concise mode of media delivery. I did enjoy the Video Topics feature, allowing you to choose and explore media by subjects ranging from Animal Rights to Biotech. However, I think the TED site is a model of organization to be envied or emulated by anyone striving to organize online media. I’m assuming all of these sites are striving for user interaction, and if that’s the case, the one with the most hits will probably be the best organized and most easily accessible. However, resources may be scarce as far as production is concerned since Patricia Zimmermann points out in  The Gado Gado Tactics of New Social Media in Indonesia that only 12 media groups control the majority of the Indonesian media. Zimmerman adds that the “gado gado strategy of aggregation of diverse voices is not confined to the visual, content  and topic domains, but also defines a constellation of capacity building, infrastructure, and technological initiatives that contribute to building and enhancing nongovernmental and noncommercial networks.” Perhaps the organization of the Engage Media site is somewhat lacking, but more importantly, critical information is being shared online by the people, for the people.

There are instances when users generate technical improvements or social tools to make sharing easier. While reading through Charlie Gere’s Introduction in Digital Culture, he references French philosopher Gilles Deleuze who said: “The machine is always social before it is technical. There is always a social machine which selects or assigns the technical elements used.”

A perfect example of this? Hashtags. Most people assume the Twitter (and now Instagram and Facebook) feature was part of the original design, but Twitter actually initially rejected the idea. Who had the idea in the first place? A Twitter user named Chris Messina, hoping for a better “eavesdropping experience” on the social media site.

“On Aug. 23, 2007, Messina sent out the following tweet: “how do you feel about using # (pound) for groups. As in #barcamp [msg]?” And with that, the hashtag was born.” –Wall Street Journal

The hashtag is now a useful micro-blogging tool that allows users to group subjects and issues for an easier discussion online. As content creators in the journalism and communication field, should we be encouraging interaction as well as invention? In our future project endeavors, should we pay close attention to suggestions from users or those contributing to our multimedia platform?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments to Week 2: Lauren Marie Paterson – Witness, Engage Media, Digital Culture

  • amandae@uoregon.edu

    Hey Lauren –thanks for succinctly weaving together all of these readings, and pointing out the +/- of the different media playforms. While discussing the difference in quality and organization of these different site, I think you clearly defined the issues brought up by the range in the content, aesthetics, distribution networks, and control level of users versus site administrators of the different media platforms. I think all of these places are looking to be accessible, relevant, and high quality –but in the triangle between all three of those issues, each platform leans more towards one than the other.

    My question is which element is more important? I ask this because I think we need to clearly identify the purpose of the type of media presented in the readings, as well as the reality of our overly-saturated mediated existence in the 21st century. Should we create high-quality content that focuses clearly on important issues, so that people notice, rather than teach people to make the work themselves? Should we focus on distribution over quality, because it’s all about getting the information out there? These are some of the questions I’m mulling over…

  • lpaters5@uoregon.edu

    ^ Those are all really interesting questions Amanda, and when asking which element is most important, I definitely don’t have an answer yet either. Maybe it’s not the highest quality footage, but even something taken on a cell phone during the Arab Spring could prove to be valuable in terms of getting information out over the Internet to those who weren’t there. However, does having more control over content and aesthetics in terms of making pieces that are higher quality make your content more accessible? If it’s easier to understand and easier to watch, perhaps more people will notice…

    Kelly Matheson pointed out how easy it is for people to contribute content now that almost every smart phone has a camera, and along with access to technology allowing us to shoot the footage, so will there be access to editing programs. iMovie is a great example of something user friendly and simple to learn, while there are even editing programs allowing you to weave together a piece on your cell phone. Perhaps as the technology improves, so will the world’s editing and presentation skills.

  • natalieb@uoregon.edu

    The Gender-Based Violence videos on the Witness Human Rights YouTube channel are making me cry. They have some really powerful videos on the site.

  • swheeler@uoregon.edu

    Lauren,

    As an advocate of open source initiatives, I think the answer to your closing questions is a resounding yes. Granted, having a plurality of contributors might mean the editor or curator will have a mess of a time constructing the finished product, but the benefits realized will far outweigh any inconvenience. First, inviting users to participate will (ideally) strengthen their engagement with project which will hopefully in turn instill in them a sense of community. Second, the skills they learn by being involved in the process might very well inspire them to continue your work or start a project of their own, thereby creating a ripple effect. There are others, but I believe these two truly stand out.

    Now, I will readily grant the above represents a best case scenario, but even though the whole project could be a creative disaster I think the benefits far outweigh the risks. Take the open source operating system Linux, for example. It has a devoted community of thousands of users who made contributions to the system, even as they continue to perform job duties separate from it. What’s more, their end product has since been incorporated into popular operating systems like iOS, Android, and even HP’s short-lived WebOS, suggesting that the solution to Amanda’s interactivity question may be synthetic (both/and), not dialectical (either/or).

  • lpaters5@uoregon.edu

    Yeah I agree! Linux has had great success and Valve’s CEO Gabe Newell even said it was “the future of gaming.” Perhaps the reason it is so popular and successful is because of the many contributions from users.

    VentureBeat: http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/16/valves-gabe-newell-linux-is-the-future-of-gaming-possible-steam-box-announcement-next-week/

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>