This Blog is (A) incredible (B) amazing (C) option C does not exist (wk9)

A terrorist has planted a bomb in a major city. You’ve caught him, but he won’t tell you where it is through interrogation. If you don’t find out, thousands will die. Should you torture him to save the city?

In one of my first university classes, we were given this scenario and asked to discuss it. I was surprised at how many people (who’d already stated they were against torture) agreed to torture immediately. We were then asked to have a closer look at the way the scenario was constructed. Many people began questioning their original position. This was because it was specifically designed to manipulate a person into thinking that there were only two choices- torture, or the destruction of the city. It ignored other methods of investigation (which, presumably, led to the arrest of the man in the first place), the possibility that you’d ‘caught’ the wrong person, that the bomb didn’t exist/ wasn’t highly powerful, or that he might lie under torture. This was a scenario designed to make people compromise their original values.

When we looked at wikileaks this week, I couldn’t help but feel we were being manipulated into thinking that Julian Assange’s methods were the only way of doing things, and were necessary for the greater good. The ticking bomb scenario, extreme though it may be, points out the fact that believing that the ends justifies the means is very dangerous thinking. It is important for us to realise how easy it can be to seemingly justify all kinds of behaviour. I think it is necessary to be aware of this and to be able to think critically about the motivations behind and the consequences of any action. We need to avoid binary thinking and attempt to see the many possibilities available to us when solving a problem.

My real problem with Assange’s behaviour is not that he (or his website) has broken a few laws. Laws are made by people, and some are wrong. That’s why they change. I think, for example, that we can all agree there was something wrong with the law when women and Aboriginals could not vote. That is why, at this point, I will not completely condemn hacking and releasing ‘classified’ information. In many instances, such as the revelation of the killing of civilians in Iraq, I absolutely admire Assange. However, I worry that he has become a law unto his own; and that he fails to consider the possibility that his way is not always the best way. Khatchadourian’s article made it clear that Assange believes that full disclosure is always necessary (despite remaining secretive himself), but the real problem with this is the fact that this has led to the endangerment of many lives. For example, despite criticism of many Human Right groups last year on wikileaks choice to reveal the names and sometimes locations of many Afghans who were under threat of ‘punishment’ from the Taliban, wikileaks has not changed its stance and continues to release unedited information, regardless of the consequences.  Seeing this, I think it is necessary to criticise rather than idealise Assange and to consider if there are better ways of approaching the problems surrounding classified information than wikileaks’ methods.

Wish life had a pause button. (My life in just six words.) (Blog Post 8)

According to literary legend, Ernest Hemingway was once challenged to write a story containing only six words. His response? ‘For sale: baby shoes, never worn.’ In barely a sentence, Hemingway had managed to write a story to rival many full length novels out there: curious, provocative and sad. Inspired by this story, Smith magazine launched a project via Twitter called Six Word Memoirs, in which people were asked to write their life story- in just six words. The result was often intriguing, sometimes astonishing and could be hilariously funny or absolutely heartbreaking. Whatever the story, however, they were all part of a larger conversation, as strangers connected with strangers whilst sharing something of their lives and personalities- a bridge made of pebbles.

I agree with Steven Johnson that the idea surrounding Twitter does leave a bad first impression, especially for lovers of literature and communication- how can restricting the amount we can say possibly contribute to meaningful conversation? I admit to being highly sceptical of Twitter when we first started this class, and I’m not going to pretend that I’ve completely warmed to it; however I am beginning to become convinced by Smith magazine’s philosophy- limitations can (but do not always) inspire creativity. Having a word limit can force people to consider what they have to say more carefully.

Follow me!

I’ve realised that although Twitter is not my favourite form of communication and some people will never understand it; that it does have worth. I consider it especially useful as a very flexible public conversation tool which, as Johnson notes, links to more substantial content. Similarly, I believe much of the attraction of Smith magazine’s collection is due to their ‘teaser’ nature- it is the memoirs which hint towards a much larger context and more substantial life story which are most enticing.  I appreciate Twitter and similar platforms much more when I understand their context. Six words can never sum up a person’s life… but they were never meant to. Instead, they are there to provide a glimpse and sometimes invite a closer look.

FacePalm- try not to hate yourself… too much. (Blog Post 7)

Dear book publishers and movie producers, it has come to my attention that many of you have suffered from an affliction which has been largely ignored by the wider community. It is my pleasure therefore to offer you some assistance in the form of my new support group called FacePalm, which reaches out to the many who have suffered as a result of poor decision making. Have you ever rejected a script or manuscript which later became an enormous success with someone else? Have you felt that sinking feeling as you realised that the housewife whose work you once labelled as mediocre was JK Rowling? Then this is the place for you.

As Shirky points out, we have long since relied on traditional publishers to filter potential works and provide us with only that which passes their test of quality. However, one only has to look at the enormous list of authors such as Stephen King, JK Rowling and George Orwell, whose iconic works were rejected by these gatekeepers several times before they became bestsellers, to see that this was not a fool proof process.

Today, however, we live in midst of a world infected by Bieber Fever, in which success can now be achieved through home videos on YouTube, and is no longer dependant on our ability to initially convince someone to invest in our talents- as we can have (relatively) direct access to a potential audience. While Anderson argues that this leads to a radically different creative climate, I can’t help but wonder if all that much has changed. Traditional publishers may have held the initial power in terms of what was consumed, but as the existence of my support group shows; the consumers have always had the ultimate power in the success of products. Regardless of what the book publishers and movie studios have provided us with, consumers have always been the deciders- which is why movie flops such as the horrible Gigli exist, as well as why so many authors became popular despite the resistance of publishers. What we have now instead, with popular review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, is a society which understands the key- that if you want something to become a success, you need the approval of those who will consume it.

Stay somewhere classy- try the Fat Cow Motel on for size (Blog Post 6)

Click here for the web page.

Eight years ago, I spent my evenings working out how to drop an unboiled egg for a metre without breaking it, listening to someone else’s voicemail messages and reading the personals on the Fat Cow Bugle. This was all part of a fun little TV show called Fat Cow Motel, and was my first experience being directly involved with participatory culture. The audience was given lateral thinking puzzles to solve each week, and could receive further clues to the show’s mysteries if they explored the webpages of the fictional town of Fat Cow. I was well and truly sucked in, and even won a t-shirt and key ring- the height of achievement. The show, although mostly forgotten now, was a success for the ABC in multiplatform storytelling with around 20 000 participants playing the game each week.

My enthusiasm for this points not only to my … ahem… ‘quirky’ taste and the fact that I had way too much time on my hands when I was thirteen; but also to one of the most important yet often forgotten facts about convergence, outlined by Jenkins. Convergence requires a participatory culture. It was all very well for the ABC to commission someone to make the enormous 5500 page website, but this would have been a waste of time if no one had wanted to get involved. As Jenkins argues, the tools alone are not enough. Corporations who want to develop multiplatform media content need an interested and active audience. Fat Cow Motel appealed to my slightly weird corner of the world and now, JK Rowling has attracted a much larger and even more active fanbase in the form of her new site Pottermore.  

Watching my potterhead friends spend their time making potions on Pottermore, I sometimes wonder what the attraction is. But the truth is, Pottermore is built around a community. The website would mean nothing to the enormous number of participants if not for the 14 year history of the world of Harry Potter. The hundreds of businesses now trying to take control of Twitter and Facebook need to understand Pottermore's flexible business model and Jenkins’ argument if they are to be successful- the capability of putting media on a bunch of different devices means nothing if you can’t  make it worth our while to become users rather than simply consumers.