Week 6 - Wenger

I would define an 'Organizational unit' as something thats unnatural, but conform to rules, regulations and objectives, an example may be a business of some sort, who may rely on money, a USP and people. People belong to communities of practice 'at the same time as they belong to other organizational structures'.

'Community of Practice' can be defined as a group of people who come together informally. They exist anywhere from in the home, businesses or school. Think about when you were at school, a big organisation ran by the governement who required you to achieve various outcomes, this would be considered an 'organizational unit'. Whilst your at school you develop theses communities of practices by being part of a group, from friends to taking part in the school football team. According to Wenger; this community is developed throught time and various stages

1. Potentional - First day of secondary school, people are unsure of everyone's personalities and capabilites
2. Coalescing - Start making friends, finding commonalites and negotiating a community.
3. Active - These people become part of your practice, you share the same language, understand how everyone behaves and have many common interests.
4. Dispersed - You leave school and maybe become part of other communties, maybe created through starting a job. Still talk though, maybe through social networking sites and so the knowledge of the community is still alive
5. Memorable - As you get older, this community is no longer central but you have kept a year book or tell stories about your 'community of practice', which consisted of your group of friends.

Nevertheless, sometimes there is a need to 'leigitimize a community', through the use of internal leadership. At secondary school, i remember being part of the school council; this was a group of students that made decisions about what activities should or may take place within the school. The common language and knowledge still existed within the 'community of practice', as it was fellow students who were involved, but there was one student who was in charge. This person would have been described as an 'institutional leader'. An 'institutional leadership' maintained links with an 'official hierachy',within a 'organizational unit' which in relation to school might be the head of year or the headteacher.

This notion of leadership creates what Wenger calls 'nurturing' and it can be formal or informal. This nurturing process could be referred to how im blogging within this unit. The 'community of practice' has been made through the friendships made be coursemates, we have a common language and knowledge of what were doing, the leadership would come formally from our tutors. There are many types of nurturing that Wenger outlines, in this case it may reflect on the idea of 'legitimzing particiaption'. This is recognising work of others, letting them participate in activities and an opportunity to talk; 'communities of practice do not usually require heavy institutional infrastructures, but their members do need time and space to collaborate', which when applied to our community on blogger, this is literally the case, we are able to share our own thoughts via posts, were given allocated time to do so, we can talk to one another and also have a leader to nurture us.

Week 6 - Analysis of a Website - The Sims 2.com

I've decided to look at 'The Sims 2' website http://thesims2.ea.com/ as its a really good example of how a good website is run. The Sims is a big franchise which is a simulator game that allows people to create people, from the way they look, personalities, what job they have and build their houses; basically a more advanced approach to what an avatar would be like online.
Firstly, after typing in the URL, a user is faced with a homepage, with an array of hypertext, which can allow the user to go to various pages within the site, which might be the forum, downloading content for 'The Sims 2' site, checking up on the latest news, and even listening to podcasts.

There's an obvious community apparent within the site. This may be from the option that allows visitors to the site to be able to put their own input into it and interact with it. If a user owns a game, they're able to bring the creations that they've made in the game offline, and put them onto the website onto whats called the 'exchange'. On the 'exchange', you can let other people download your content, so that it then becomes part of their game or download other peoples objects and 'sims'. This makes people become produsers of the website. Axel Bruns might suggest that this is user-led production, as these 'user-produsers often take the lead in the development of new content and ideas', as they are able to bring their stuff from there games into this website. Herz even writes about 'The Sims', saying how its 'prodused by the players rather than by the game publisher Maxis' (2005:335).

Just recently added is a 'The Sims 2 Store' http://thesims2store.ea.com/, which can be accessed through the homepage, which resembles any online shopping website like 'www.Amazon.com' or 'www.Play.com', there's regular 'deals' on sim objects, this time created by the creators of the game, but this time you have to pay these objects in 'simpoints', which can be obtained by exchanging real money. This is a very interesting concept as it keeps the player of the game in this virtual game world. You could even argue that this is techno-determinism; if the site ran with the purchases being in normal currency, it might change the way that people are kept in the game when their not playing it.

Nevertheless, there's also other content within the website, like the forum. Not only does the exchange create a sense of community, with people interacting with one another by sharing their creative idea's but the forum also allows this, with people able to post any problems that their having in the game, with answers from moderators; who are people involved with the game itself, which i would say brings an element of trust within the forum and also stops people from flaming because the language of this community is controlled by these people.

Flaming might even be discouraged because people have to register to the site to be able to exchange and to reply to posts on the forum. People can be anonymous because they have the option of creating avatars and fake names if they want, but because the site is run be moderators and mostly people involved in the website a fans of the game, there's an element of trust.

Users dont have to register to look at any other content which might mean that people may lurk and maybe not feel like part of the community if they cant interact. However McMillan and Chavis (1986) describe sense of community in four concepts:

1. Feelings of membership - 'The Sims 2' website would provide this through people registering to the site
2. Feelings of influence - 'The Sims 2' website would provide this by people being a produser on 'the exchange' , creating objects for other members to download
3. Integration and fulfillment of needs - 'The Sims 2' website would provide this through their forums, being able to offer support and people able to give support back
4. Shared emotional connection - 'The Sims 2' would provide this with the constant links back to the game ('The Sims 2 Store') and keeping the players or even non players who want the game interested.

I don't often interact with the site, so might be seen as a lurker but because i have the game, the sense of community is already been made for me as i have an interest and an 'emotional connection', in the what the site has to offer (reading up on news updates etc). So for me my sense of community would come from McMillan and Chavis's last point.
'The Sims 2' underpins alot of theory that we've been looking at in the past weeks but mostly concerns itself with how a website can create a sense of community within a group of people online.

Bruns, A (2006) 'Towards Produsage: Futures For User-Led Content Production'
http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf
Blanchard, A (2004) ‘Blogs as Virtual Communities: Identifying a Sense of Community’
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogs_as_virtual.html

Topic 1 Week 5 - Bruns

Being a produser is stemming off from something thats already been made and adding to it and instead of just being the user of a website but part producer. There are many different ways that a person can become a produser; to which Bruns describes, for example there's 'user-led production'. I've previously spoke of Meikle work and how he spoke of the 'Indymedia', a site that allows people to create their own news, instead of leaving it up to big news corpations on the tv, the site is very popular and people are able to produce texts that are news worthy. Secondly there's 'collaborative engagement', whereby people extend existing material, 'wikipedia' would be an example of how this is implemented, as people are allowed to add information onto the site.

Obviously there's flaws with the term produser, like flaming and being able trust these people are able to interact with these website's. However if there's too much control, does this then take away from the whole point. 'Indymedia' is available to anyone and has become a success without too much moderation. I think it just depends on the site and how its constructed, i think people immediately know how to behave when their on a website, there's like an unwritten construction there, maybe this is from the fact that some sites require registration,a fee, the sucess of the website or because of the content?

I think this trend will definately exist, commercial forces are apparent, 'YouTube' videos now have adverts within the video itself, but i don't think that the sucessful sites will be bought out and that will be the end of produsage. Afterall, websites need interaction, if there's no audience or sense of some community, then these sucessful websites will be overlooked by website that do provide these features.

Topic 1 Week 5 - Meikle

What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?

The news has completely reinvented itself from where one of the major ways of communicating events across the globe, was through the use of a the telegraph. Now there's numerous outlets, whereby news can be consumed. Radio, newspapers, the internet, tv, mobile phones etc are the main mediums whereby people can access the news. This would lead onto Burnett and Marshall's concept of 'informational news', whereby people are now faced with an array of news sources, that they can now choose the 'hierachy' of which these different sources lie. This in turn would cause a problem because you would need to ask well 'what constitutes news?'. I suppose it lies within a persons perceptions of what they think good news is and i'm not saying that in the sense of whether the topic is pessimistic or optimistic but whether the source is reliable, where did they get their sources from? is the news of interest to you, is it left wing or right wing? does it draw you in? who's delivering the news? is it someone with a camcorder in their bedroom because then would that be a blog rather than real news? There's all these question which someone would need to answer to know whether the news their viewing is worthy of being called news.

Going back to the idea of someone filming in a bedroom and posting on the web, which is apparent on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcOe2JF4EXI&feature=related. im aware that this guy is annoying) Would this mean that this made someone a journalist? or would it be like what Burnett Marshall said about how people are merely 'retrieving' the information from other news outlets and therefore not 'new avenues for new kinds of journalists to develop and publish new kinds of news'. I can understand their point because they could get there news source from anywhere and most of the time these people are criticising whats been said, and not coming up with anything new. On the otherhand some news organisations may do the same, but because they have the better production and the space to publish this news professionally, it doesn't look as bad. It all comes down to those previous questions; is it reliable? who's talking? etc.

Also if we then look at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/ who's described themselves as a website that a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues. Which means that they break away from the news you might see at 10pm on BBC1. It's also obvious that this type of news is popular as its now in its third year or production, so i suppose i again depends on the person and what they think news is and whether they want to follow it.

Topic 3 Week 4 - Music Sharing Online

'Hard times hit the music industry with the birth of Napster in 1999 – a technology that allowed people to easily copy and distribute MP3 files, leading to accusations of music copyright violations. A generation of music consumers became used to downloading songs free. When the US Supreme Court shut down Napster in 2001, other sites popped up in its place. Since then, music CD sales have precipitously declined, dropping 20 percent in 2008 compared with 2007'. This may be a downside to music sharing online but this isn't to say that people aren't still purchasing music with '2.4 billion songs were purchased on iTunes as Apple expanded into overseas markets'

There's also been a study which states that file sharing has had a limited effect on record sales, researchers from Harvard University wrote that 'While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing' (2004). So basically if someone isn't going to buy an album they wont download it illegally. To some extent this refers to me, if i want to give an artist a listen i will download an album and see what its like; if i really like an artist i would go out and buy their album because i want a certainty that the quality will be good.

There's no doubt that the music industry has changed. Even if its effected record sales or not, the whole concept of listening to music has changed. The Top 40 on radio 1 on Sundays, now has an added download chart, people can listen to the radio online and through the TV, even through mobiles. Also there's an increase on user-generated sites like Youtube, where millions of music video's can be accessed, from different countries, before they've even been released in this country. This might change popular music; with such an array of music to choose from, people have more of a choice in what they listen too. This means that bands might be noticed and made famous, Lily Allen and Kate Nash were found through Myspace; a social networking site. These sites just create more outlets for musicians to express themselves and give the audiences something more in return. I think these changes are definately beneficial and good for society.



The Christian Science Monitor (2009) Can a 'Day of Sharing' save the music industry?http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0225/p12s01-ussc.html

John Borland (2004) Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

Topic 2 Week 4 - Social Networking Sites

'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' - Susan Greenfield a neuroscientist, talking about social networking sites in the Daily Mail (2009). What she's saying could be argued but i personally think its over dramatic. I love facebook like anyone else, but there's no way that i could use the site as my base for social interaction.

Mark Vernon from the Guardian (2009) has countered this argument by saying that there's not enough evidence to suggest these claims by Susan Greenfield. He talks about a friend called Lisa who used these sites as a lifeline. She had problems in her life and talked about it on the internet, her friends and family did the best they could in supporting her but the emails and replies she got from these sites was uplifting. He basically says that all thats a bit of 'common sense', use it wisely and when you need it. I dont think anyone would live their life like that, their whole life on social networking sites.

He also looked at two Taiwanese psychologists who published results in a peer-reviewed journal, CyberPsychology and Behaviour, which suggested that hundreds of students who blog, say how they feel more socially responsible and better connected, not less. Their virtual exchanges complement their offline relationships, leading to a deepening of both. I think this is very true. I can talk to the people that i see out and about daily, then in the evening i can talk to my family who live in Brighton, even my 11 year old brother on MSN and people who might not talk to if i didnt use social networking sites. It sustains relationships instead of the other way round.








http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/25/socialnetworking-neuroscience


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html

Topic 1 Week 4 - Blanchard Question F

Is it fair to say that ‘community is in the eye of the user(s)’, in the sense that it is about what’s on offer and how people respond to it, rather than saying any collection of people interacting online is a community?

There are 4 dimensions in which a community is developed

1. Feelings of membership
2. Feelings of influence
3. Intergration and fulfillment of needs
4. Shared emotional connection

This all possible from forming a community online. To some extent i think that 'community is in the eye of the user', someone could constantly be a lurker, which might detach them from a community. However if a user has sense of one of the four dimensions, then they could be part of anything, especially the last point; if a person has frequent interaction with something, their going to feel like their involved. This is my opinion anyways. I often go onto my favourite bands fansite, i read the forums, never respond, but feel like im part of that community because of my 'shared emotional connection' to it.

Macmillian, D. W., & Chavis, D.M (1986) 'Sense of Community: A defintion and theory' Journal of Community Psychology, vol.14, pp 6-23

Week 3 Reading - Web Forums

A web forum being a more tradional version of a bulletin board system. In the lecture there was discussion over two forums on the web, www.well.com and www.craigslist.com . There was a question that was raised about the issue of flaming - which is whereby someone responds or puts a hostile or derogatory comment in forums or via emails.

The second website was rife with flaming and yet 'The Well', even at first glance looked more professional, with people being polite with one another, more like a community. I think the differences stem from the fact that if you sign up for 'The Well', there's different type of membership options and as a member have to pay. So ultimately why would someone pay to flame. Even though with craiglist you have to register, it would be easier to be anonymous and therefore some people might take this as an opportunity. Also it seems like any information can be accessed and lurked on a larger scale with 'Craiglist'. I started looking through the website and within seconds i was able to reply to someones post by clicking on a link, which then opened up my hotmail account, with this persons email placed into a new email ready for me to send my reply. So it seems that you dont really need to register, unless you want to use the site properly.

Surely this would also bring up the issue of spamming. With the email available to a non member and no details entered into the site, all that could be used to trace me would be my hotmail account, but then again i could set up a fake email and use it for these purposes. If i wanted to it could be easily achieved.

Therefore you've got these two forums, who are completely different, as 'The Well' can't be accessed at all, unless there's a payment and a registration, the homepage states that theres 'non-anonymous here'. 'Craigslist' however brings up many issues; spam, flaming, trust, do these people feel a sense of a community and so they feel like they can trust people and stay logged onto the site? who knows. Maybe this site is a place where people like to mess around and cause arguments or maybe this is a culture thats been accepted. I know that i wont be using it.

Week 3 Reading - Sherry Turkle

'Turkle's own metaphor of windows serves well to introduce the following samplings from her new book. Those boxed-off areas on the screen, Turkle writes, allow us to cycle through cyberspace and real life, over and over. Windows allow us to be in several contexts at the same time - in a MUD, in a word-processing program, in a chat room, in e-mail' (Wired 2008)

What Turkle is saying here is very true to my experience of the internet. When I'm on the internet i always find myself opening up Facebook first and once i've done checking up on my updates, instead of closing the window down, i leave it open and add a tab to go onto another website. So no matter what i'm doing, i'm accessing 'several contexts at the same time'.

'Computer screens are the new location for our fantasies, both erotic and intellectual'. This also can be true. Everything can be accessed on the internet, from sex, shopping and millions of information at a central point. People can say things that they might not in real life because they can be whoever they want and access websites which keep they're anonymity, which means that if they do have a fantasy, they can explore it freely without being judged. At first glance this might seem beneficial, but lets not forget that there needs to be regulations.





Wired (2008) Who Am We? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html

Topic 2 Week 3 Question A

Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?

If you were applying for a job and you put in a different name, age and address, this may seem unethical, plus it just wouldnt work within society. If everyone went around and everyday changed who they were, this would be wrong. Therefore why does this type of behaviour exist online. This isn't to say that when someone asks for your details you should tell them everything from bank accounts to how many pets you have, but people shouldn't live behind fake identities because this is where problems arise, for example pedeophiles. I think as a normal person, you should know when its safe and necessary to use your correct details. I use my details to shop on Amazon and i even bank online. I trust these sites to keep my identity safe. Just thinking back to applying to University; the majority of that process was done online and even if it wasn't, you would still have to put down elements of your identity regardless and trust who's viweing it.

Ultimately i don't think its ethically wrong to withhold your identity when you dont trust where the information is going, but i do think its ethically wrong when a fake identity or no identity is used in chatrooms in particular. Just because you might be talking to someone who you'll never meet, this doesn't mean that you should change yourself, most people wouldn't do that put into a real life situation, so why do it online?

Topic 1 Week 3 - Question E

Are online relationships the same as offline one?

Personally i dont think the relationships could ever be the same. There could be some similarities but as far as being the same goes, theres no way. Think of a conversation with someone on the phone, and then talking to that person face-to- face; theres some things you might say to them on the phone and not any other way, the conversation might be limited because of bad connection or the amount of credit you have, you might not be able to contact the person because their phone might be turned off. This would be the same as online, its asychronous; you could send someone an email and they might not respond to days and the response you do get might not be what you wanted.

Ultimately theres always the issue of people not being who they say they are online. In terms of online gaming, you've got people who might create avatars; a term that refers to an interactive representation of a human in a virtual reality environment. A person could change their name, their gender, their age etc. Therefore if a relationship was made through the use of avatars, there might be a possibility that its not the real them.

However Taylor that there's a 'tradition within online communities for online friends and gaming partners to get together for face-to-face meetings' (2:2006) Also there was an online newspaper article which shows how the chinese government 'will start real-name registration for online game players this year' (Peoples Daily Online january 2009). Therefore there are some controls within the web; to stop people creating false personalities, but this doesnt make online and offline relationships the same. It all comes down to the difference in communication, the interactivity, the navigation, its completely different.




Taylor, T, L. (2006) Play Between Worlds, Published MIT Press
Peoples Daily Online (2009) Online gamers have to give real names http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90877/6575252.html

Week 2 - Hypertext

There are many different examples of interactivity. For instance on my previous blog i spoke about pyschological interaction and psychical interaction. On the web, an example of a website that includes psychical interaction would be http://www.miniclip.com/games/en/; a website which specialises on online gaming. This type of interaction would encompass 'Immersive navigation', the opposite being hypertextual navigation (Lister 2003:21). Peter Lunenfeld (1993 in Lister 2003:21) commented on this idea by comparing two paradigms of interaction 'immersive' and 'extractive'.

Firstly, 'hypertextual navigation' which is 'extractive', enforces users of the web has to create their own texts from a various amount of texts on offer, the web obviously using hypertext, in which objects (text, pictures, music, programs, and so on) can be creatively linked to each other. Thus making the web non linear and push a user to extract whats on offer into an individualised text. Online gaming being 'immersive navigation' would make it 'immersive'. Different from 'hypertextual navigation' because some games involves the use of 3D. This means that the users of online gaming would have to understand this 3D world, obviously being a different form of a media text. Nevertheless, there's also 'registrational navigation' (Lister 2003:22). If we were to look a website that specicialises in forums http://www.teenhut.net/; the user is able to write back to a text, expressing their opinions or even create their own. Or if we were to use online gaming, this could refer back to MUD'S and MOO's.

Ultimately, theses types of navigations wouldnt be possible without the use of hypertexts; 'a hyperworld -a new realm of published texts and graphics, all available instantly: a grand library that anybody can store anything in' (Nelson 1982 in Lister 2003:26). This is what makes the web so popular, moving from web 1.0 to web 2.0. It creates a democracy, something thats unstructured, allowing people to communicate with people at anytime of the day with people that they might not talk to everyday life. This may cause problems with people not being who they say they are (peadophiles). However many websites do have controls, whereby people have to type in personal information and even have gatekeepers, monitoring what people say. This could question whether thats allowing people to be free, but for the most part people are allowed to express their feelings freely http://www.craiglist.com/ for example; seems like anything is possible.


Lister et al (2003) New Media - A Critical Introduction, Published by Taylor and Francis

Topic 3 Week 2 - My Blogs

My experience so far, of blogging and online seminars has been interesting. The time that it takes to read, write and comment on other group members makes it completely different t other seminars. A normal seminar would last for 50mins, but this requires constant attention and it has taken me a while to adjust to this. I feel like because of this, the rest of my groups blogs have lacked response from me and even my blogs havent recieved responses. This is an obvious difference when compared to normal seminars; here you dont get direct responses.

However i have enjoyed how instead of relying on other people to teach me what i need to know; i have to contribute; by reading and getting more absorbed in the work and even having my own opinions.

I might not be myself, but who is online? I keep wanting to use slang words, as im so used to writing to peers on facebook and im never this confident around fellow students. Plus i know that im being assessed.

What i do like about blogs is that it allows you to take time in structuring what your saying and hypertext allows me to be a 'produser'. Sonya Livingstone stated that hypertext may lead people to create a new form of literacy to understand it. However, being brought up on this new media, doesn't affect me.

Topic 2 Week 2 - Asychronous Online Communication - How Does It Feel?

There are many apparent differences if were to compare the online seminars with the norm. The navigation aspect has is the obvious one; instead of face to face interaction and direct response, the user has to use different interactions (typing, clicking the mouse etc). The non-direct response can be an issue which could be avoided if the seminars were in real time; involving a completely different type of communication. However, there might be a case where a group member may not turn up, therefore still creating the problem. Therefore being able to write a blog and have the option for people to view it at their leisure ensures that what you've got to say is heard; in the form of a blog.

The benefit of having online seminars may also include confidence. In real life, you may hold back on something because of a lack of confidence, or even be shadowed by someone else. Blogging however, allows people to express their opinions more freely.

Topic 1 Week 2 - Question D

Is there a clean break between analogue and digital media (cf. Bolter and Grusin’s concept of ‘remediation’)? Can you identify any commonalities? For example, is email based on the language of ‘letters’ and ‘the postal service’ because we have tried to fashion its communication functions in terms we are already familiar with?



DAB (digital audio broadcasting) is an interesting concept, a technology first developed in the late 80’s because it guaranteed three benefits; firstly more channels could be accessed, secondly that there was better sound quality and finally a clean interference free reception. Furthermore, sales of the DAB receivers since the 80’s have been increasing, with ‘28% of homes according to RAJAR’ (Campaign, 2008:14) having possession of them. In the book New Media - A Critical Introduction, Lister breaks down new media into 'manageable parts' (2003:3), one of which would be that new media brings about 'new relationships with subjects' (3), so with reference to DAB radio, this may be how people are able to recieve a better sound quality, how theres more plurality within stations etc.

However going by a modernist myth of the new, Bolter and Grusin, in their book titled Remediation (2000) stated that that new visual media achieve their cultural significance precisely by refashioning earlier media. They call this process of refashioning 'remediation'. Basically nothing is really new, its just altering what was originally there. Therefore referring these concepts radio, you could argue that thats exactly what DAB radio is conforming to, is improving sound quality, creating something completely new?


(2008) Campaign, 24th October 2008, pg 14
Bolter, J, Grusin, R (2000) Remediation - Understanding New Media, Published by MIT Press
Lister et al (2003) New Media - A Critical Introduction, Published by Taylor and Francis

Week 1 Topic 2 - The Internet and its impact on society

You might suggest that the interent has become popular because of its lack of structure, people have to ability to look at whatever they want on the internet, even as far as talking to whoever they want. There may be opportunities for adults to protect their children from what sites they view, however this isnt compulsory and so children may be exposed to all sorts.

The internet has even been linked to the suicides of many teenagers in Bridgend (Wales). It has been proposed that these teenagers "think it's cool to have a memorial website. It may even be a way of achieving prestige among their peer group." (The Times:2008) Also in 2001 'Simon Kelly, from Cornwall, was communicating with others on a suicide chat room right up until the moment that he killed himself`(The Times:2008). This may start a moral panic within society, with other forms of media showing these internet effects on young people.

The internet may not be the main cause of these teenagers deaths, but in the case of Simon Kelly in particular, gave the opportunity for other people to see his death, which can be argued that this might lead to other individuals being influenced in doing the same. A downfall of the internet?

The Times (2008) Bridgend, suicide and the internet: the facts http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3399528.ece

Week 1 Topic 2 - Goebbels

Goebbels expresses how the radio's purpose 'is to teach, entertain and support people', reaching 'the people' and 'works for the people'. At first glance you would think that this would be a benefit, however it seems that Goebbels use of the radio were for other reasons, ultimately this being for political gains. He speaks of the radio like its a political party; it has to have its 'own rules', 'eliminate excessive organisation' (to which he refers to rival political party the national socialists) and also speaks of how the use of radio is to introduce the 'leadership principle'; much like the Nazi party that he's affiliated with, even the term propagaganda was used. Therefore it may seem like Goebbels is working 'with the people', but maybe for selfish reasons, mainly using radio for personal gains, trying to make the German nation believe that their nation or even the Nazi party was the most notable. As Goebbels said 'One People, one Reich, one will and a glorious German future'.

Today radio might have completely different functions. It still may be used 'to teach, entertain and support people', but with technological advancements, there are many other mediums to either offer the same or even different purposes. Some people might use the radio for entertainement, tv for learning new things and the internet as a form of support. Radio itself has changed, theres not so much of a structure, with a range of radio stations, from classical stations, to stations that are dedicated to sport. Goebbels had a structure which meant that it would be more likely for a mass audience to be listening to the same radio station and therefore be more powerful. However with the ever increasing choice between stations and mediums, appealing to a mass audience might be harder nowadays.

Today the radio still has the capabilities to communicate with people. Radio may even be more accessible being that theres many stations that arent funded by the public, whereas german radio listeners in the mid 1900's had to pay a fee. The radio still a good source of feeding information, but this time doesnt resemble a political party. It could be argued that instead of 'working for the people', the people work for the radio, with people allowed to phone-in to express their opinions, request songs, send photos through via the internet etc.

Joseph Goebbels, "Der Rundfunk als achte Großmacht," Signale der neuen Zeit. 25 ausgewählte Reden von Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1938), pp. 197-207