The Google Corporation is an expanding empire that is becoming more prominent in the everyday lives of internet users. Although Google began as a search engine, the business has now developed new software, including Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Docs and YouTube, amongst many others. The name of the company has even become a common verb in modern vocabulary: we don’t “look up” information anymore; instead, we “google it.” With a mere click of the search bar the world’s seemingly hidden information is instantly at our fingertips. In sheer seconds we become global consumers of information.
According to Ken Auletta, author of Googled: The End of the World as We Know It, 70 percent of all searchers world-wide use Google. Google News provides 25,000 news sites to its audience daily, available online from hundreds of countries (1). Advertisers compete for space on Google, which “revenues more than 20 billion dollars a year” (Auletta, 1) and Google applications are readily available for anyone with internet capabilities on their cell phones. As the business revolutionizes and globalizes the world it is evident that huge impacts are being made on media and culture.
Academic research regarding Google and its effects on internet users suggests that Google works as a global force that significantly affects how information is obtained and shared. The major studies from sociology and communication studies can be organized into three themes. First, Google is a hegemonic force that controls how global communities search for, find and store information. Second, society often trusts (and chooses to trust) Google results, showing that the site acts as a pervasive force that subjects internet users to a small amount of information that controls how they understand the global community. Finally, research has concluded that Google is a powerful empire that acts as a nation-state to achieve its own policy agendas.
As technology changes and progresses, Google has played a large role in changing how information is provided and received by the general public in many countries, especially through Google Scholar, Google news, igoogle and YouTube software. Google has become a hegemonic force that affects how global communities search for, store and share information. New technologies have allowed Google to monopolize the online data industry, thereby changing how internet users around the world search for and share information.
John Battelle’s The Search (2005) outlines the history of Google from the start of the business to how the company operates in modern day society. Battelle argues that search technology has made a tremendous impact on culture, marketing, media, pop culture and communication. Battelle also attempts to answer what he calls the “who” question: who uses search engines and how this use has changed what internet users search for online and how they search for it (25). He states that in 2003, the world conducted about 550 million searches each day and it is expected that figure has grown about 10 to 20 percent each year since (26). He also argues that “as we search more, we are also becoming more connected, more digital and more dependent on information services” (26). Battelle argues that Google is so powerful that it has nearly quenched its competition, becoming the market leader in global searches with 51% of online searchers using Google as their preferred search engine while more than five other major search engines share the other 49 percent (30).
Batelle’s findings show that Google’s dominance in the internet world has significantly impacted the way individuals search for, share and store information. As Google monopolizes the information industry other companies are being forced out of the competition, leaving Google with the majority of the world population as its consumer base. This hegemony on the internet could create major consequences as online consumers are left with Google as the major available choice for online sharing and storing software. Statistics found in The Search were collected in 2005, and since its publication the Google Empire has grown to a much greater capacity. More research needs to be conducted to determine whether Google’s dominance on the internet has had further social and cultural implications on a global level.
In Planet Google, Randall Stross (2008) outlines the founding of the Google Corporation and its history as a growing company. The book discusses how Gmail, Google books, Google earth, Google Maps andGoogle scholar have contributed to make Google a globalized source and gatekeeper of information. Stross argues that “the more users rely upon Google’s Office-like software, the less need they will have to purchase and maintain software for a desktop computer” (8). Stross also examines Google’s present and future business strategies, specifically the company’s “cloud computing” plan. Stross defines cloud computing as a “model of highly centralized computing” where “a user’s documents will seem to float in cyberspace, accessible from anywhere with an Internet connection” (8). Planet Google also discusses the public concern that Google’s goal to organize and store all of the world’s information will compromise users’ privacy (9-10).
Google has already made incredible advances to achieve cloud computing and has changed how users store and share information, especially with Google Docs and Gmail. Individuals can save personal documents on the internet and share, send and edit information with others through Google software. As shown in The Search, Google claims the majority of the internet consumer base, and so Google is proven to be a hegemonic force as individuals are faced with website as the dominant internet resource. Planet Google gives a valid argument, but more research is needed to determine whether cloud computing will have negative effects in maintaining user privacy. It is also necessary to study whether Google’s goal to store 100 percent of the world’s information on its own servers is feasible, and what effects this will have on other internet businesses.
Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas argue that Google has gone even further in shaping modern culture in The Google Generation: Are ICT Innovations Changing Information-Seeking Behavior? This study asks whether the modern generation that has never lived without the internet demonstrates unique qualities in how it seeks and uses information. Researchers concluded that “digital technologies have transformed communication and information searching activities for e everyone and will continue to evolve over the next ten years” (169). Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas suggest that with Google acting as a pervasive force in modern culture it will define how internet users find and use information. They also argue that over time this development will not be restricted to the “Google Generation,” but will increasing change how all internet users obtain and share information online (169-170).
When analyzing this theory of a “Google Generation” it is important to define the term “generation.” According to Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas, it “has been defined in age-delimited terms together with having some kind of common cultural identity” (66). This study, along with the definition of “generation,” argues that new media has been significant in shaping a new cultural identity. This suggests that Google has become a dominant force in controlling how generations across the globe utilize information. Not only does Google define the culture of users who have always had internet access, but it has ultimately changed how older generations access and share data as well. After examining this study, it can be concluded that Google has played a significant role in determining how users store and share information.
Studies have shown that Google acts as dominant new media, but it is important to understand the role of consumers in this new media and the relationship between Google and its audience. In the article: “Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content,” Dijck (2009) examines this role. He argues that there is a complex relationship between source and audience because users take on cultural and economic roles as producers, consumers, data providers and participators in online media. Dijck demonstrates this complex relationship using Google’s YouTube as an example, stating that YouTube has become a company that focuses on the integration of “search engines with content, social networking and advertising” (43). He argues that the modern culture has become a “participatory culture” where individuals demonstrate creativity and self-expression on the internet (54). The article concludes that in order to understand the relationship between new media technologies and society, researchers should find a new approach that uses ideas from cultural theory and addresses economic and labor relations (43).
In this article, Dijck aims to define the difference between recipients and participants, saying that in modern culture internet users have changed by participating in the sharing of information rather than simply receiving it. He pays particular attention to YouTube, which is a website where users can upload videos to share with other users and individuals can watch video that has been added by nearly anyone around the world. According to Auletta, the Google corporation owns YouTube (152). Therefore this article strongly suggests that Google’s advancements in technology and internet software is a hegemonic force that controls the way individuals globally share information.
Another important aspect of Google’s pervasive effect on its audience is its business with advertisers. According to Auletta, “Google help[s] advertisers target consumers not just by age, sex, income, profession or zip code, but personal preferences for leisure time activities, frequently visited locations, product preferences, news preferences, etc. (7).” In the article “Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to Google,” Bermejo (2009) analyzes empirical research and historical comparisons to define new media and determine how audiences are manufactured. He pays particular attention to the ‘blindspot debate,’ which argues that audiences become a commodity when exposed to advertiser-supported communication media such as search engines (137). Bermejo examines how Google’s Adwords program works, observing that advertising depends on keywords entered by the user and is not necessarily controlled by the advertiser (149). Based on this, Bermejo argues that in new media such as Google, online advertising has shifted to a market of words and cannot be measured by amount of exposure.
According to Auletta, Google revenues 40 precent of all advertising dollars spent online (xi), showing that Google has become the dominant force in internet advertising. Bermejo’s study suggests that this success is largely based on the search engine’s ability to manufacture its audience rather than on the advertiser’s ability to relate to that audience. Based on this research, it could be argued that Google’s success in the advertising industry is due to its ability to control the way users are exposed to advertising. The pervasive qualities of Google are directly seen as users are constantly exposed to advertising that directly appeals to personal information collected from keyword searches.
Research has clearly shown that Google has made online information more accessible and has determined how current and older generations find and store that information. Based on these findings, it must be asked how this role has affected the education and cultural identity of online consumers. Research has shown that Google acts as a pervasive force, subjecting internet users to a small amount of information that controls how they understand the global community. This can have negative results if users do not effectively analyze the information provided to them, changing worldviews and even creating a network of misinformation if results are not used conscientiously.
The purpose of a search engine is to help users quickly access the information they are searching for by finding results based on a small set of keywords. This can be difficult because websites are constantly being updated and rewritten, so multiple histories of desired information can be left on the internet. The study “Multiple Presents: How Search Engines Rewrite the Past” (2006) was conducted to determine how accurately search engines can find websites that have continuously been updated or changed. After searching for a piece of information using Yahoo! and Google at different increments of time, the researchers argue that as search engines update their algorithms and lose older websites, large periods of time and information are lost when users attempt to conduct academic research using search engines (916-917). It was found that “both search engines not only lose information quantitatively, but that they also erase the structures entailed in the relationships between words of webpage titles (Hellsten, 917).” This erosion in the ability to retrieve information creates serious implications, especially when search engines are used to conduct academic research.
Hellsten, Leydesdorff and Wouter’s study clearly suggests that search engines relocate information on the internet and search mostly in the present and most recent past for documents matching keyword descriptions, creating a loss of historical record. This study is an example of how Google is a pervasive force that determines what information a user can find, thereby controlling a user’s exposure to information and controlling their understanding of history and the world. The researchers of the study present a compelling argument, however it is important for more research to be conducted to determine how user’s can effectively use search engines to access the unbiased and historically correct information they are searching for. It is also important to conduct more studies to learn exactly what effects this problem has on search engine users and to what extent this misrepresentation of historical information skews understanding.
In the case study “In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance” (2007), researchers determined how trustworthy users believe Google is in ranking their search results. Google was chosen for its popularity in modern culture as well as the subjects’ previous knowledge and experience in using it. The researchers of the study were interested in discovering whether the site’s success is due to the efficiency of its ranking as opposed to the users’ trust in the results provided to them. The intentions of the results are to provide information on designing better search engines as well as research the influence search engines have on society and culture today. The study clearly suggests that there is a strong correlation between Google’s ability to rank the relevance of search abstracts and users’ trust in those results.
This study effectively shows how Google can control the way internet users understand information. Users who unquestioningly trust Google rankings are only exposed to small demographic of information where data may be biased or even misrepresented. In return this narrow frame can become embedded in the attitudes and behaviors of search-engine users. More research should be conducted to further evaluate this effect on Google users. The participants were all college students of the same age demographic, chosen from the same university, which created too narrow of a scope for this particular study as different generations have different cultures and habits on the internet. Another study should be done to determine the influence of Google on more diverse age groups or on participants from different geographical locations. At the beginning of the study, participants also admitted already feeling a level of trust toward Google’s results, and it would be helpful to determine whether more cynical users treat Google differently and produce different findings.
Previous studies have shown that search engine users have found it difficult to evaluate the quality of information they find through search engines, especially if they have little previous knowledge about the topic (1093-1094). In the case-study “Source Evaluation, Comprehension and Learning in Internet Science Inquiry Tasks,” Wiley, et al. (2009) conducted two experiments to determine how important it is for users to evaluate sources when using search engines. Subjects in the first experiment were told to find and explanation for the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The results showed that there was a positive relationship between source evaluation and learning outcomes. In the second experiment, users were asked to determine the reliability of the sources. This study showed that students who had previous instruction in evaluating sources comprehended the information more effectively. The researchers concluded that evaluation of sources is crucial to successful learning.
This study shows that users who are taught to evaluate sources are more successful in finding accurate information through the use of search engines. However, Wiley, et al. found that “what is clear from Experiment 1 is that only a small percentage of students seemed to engage in selective processing and evaluation spontaneously” (1094). Once again, this research suggests that a large majority of users do not actively engage with search engines and instead trust that engines such as Google will provide them with accurate results. It can be argued that as users fail to evaluate sources provided to them, they are exposed to a narrow amount of information that can ultimately determine how they learn and understand the global community.
A similar study about users’ role in evaluating sources is discussed in “Search Engines and the Production of Academic Knowledge.” Van Dijck (2010) examines how Google Scholar and other search engines have become significant tools in conducting academic research and obtaining general knowledge. Van Dijck argues that new users commonly trust search engines to provide them with correct information, without a “basic understanding of the economic, political and socio-cultural dimensions of search engines” (576). Van Dijck suggests that as these technologies are used as basic tools for research it is detrimental that students are taught how to evaluate and effectively use the information they find (587).
Once again, this study suggests that in a scholarly setting, students who conduct academic research don’t understand how search engines work. Students trust search engines (specifically Google Scholar) to make correct decisions and find correct information. This can result in a narrow frame of research as students learn and obtain information, thereby affecting how they view the world.
While new Google technologies control how individuals learn, the corporation itself operates as a growing nation-state that acts according to specific policy agendas. As the Google empire expands, the corporation operates in accordance to its own goals and standards. According to previous research, Google is driven by technological and economical goals, with the ultimate intention to have the capability to store 100 percent of the world’s information on its own servers. As Google works towards this objective, global culture has reflected sociological and political consequences.
The most direct example of Google’s interest in promoting its own agenda is its blog titled “Public Policy: Google’s view on government, policy and politics.” The blog communicates Google’s opinion on political issues that the company is most concerned about. The blog states that “Google’s goal in Washington, D.C. is simple: Defend the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication, and innovation.” On the blog, the company posts its position on a wide variety of issues, including open internet and broadband access, privacy, security, freedom of expression and clean energy. Because Google has become so powerful, it can act on a political level in swaying governments to act on Google agendas.
In the article “And now, a peek at Google’s D.C. Agenda,” Kenneth Corbin (2008) says that Google has become more than just a technology company and argues that Google “is wading deeper into the policy arena with each passing year.” The article states the Google has an administration working at the political level in Washington D.C. that is working toward broadband deployment and energy reform. Corbin reports that Google is calling for reductions in carbon emissions and recently proposed an internet driven “smart-grid” idea to the Obama administration that would allow every consumer to monitor their energy consumption. Corbin also reports that Google CEO Schmidt currently serves as an economic advisor to Obama and Google’s Head of Global Development Initiatives Sonal Shah acts within Washington’s Technology Policy Advisory group. This article shows how closely Google is able to work with the U.S. government in achieving its own goals. The company and its leaders have grown powerful enough to discuss its ideas with major policymakers in the U.S. government, further suggesting that it has become a nation-state able to push its own policy agendas and shape political opinions both nationally and globally.
The most recent and publicized move that Google has made in asserting its dominance as a nation-state is the company’s relations with China. According to the article “Google Inc.,” which was published on the New York Times website, Google made a deal with China in 2006 that the company could gain access to the Chinese market if it censored its search engine of banned topics in China. However, in January 2010 Google announced that it would no longer cooperate with this censorship agreement and that it was considering ceasing business with China altogether. On November 15, 2010, Google Public Policy Director Bob Boorstin posted a blog on the Google Policy Blog site stating that Google would not limit freedom of information online. Boorstin stated, “In addition to infringing human rights, governments that block the free flow of information on the Internet are also blocking trade and economic growth.” At the end of the blog, Boorstin urged policy makers in the United States and countries around the world to “free trade and internet commerce.” According to “Google Inc.” the situation was resolved in June 2010 when Bejing renewed its contract with Google.
Google’s situation with China was unexpected, especially as the business risked losing a market of internet users even larger than the United States. Yet Google has grown into such a powerful force that even the Chinese government could not lose the online service. This situation clearly shows that Google no longer acts simply as an online business but as a corporate empire powerful enough to fight global governments. In this instance, the company’s agenda was to prevent the free trade of online information from being blocked, and although standing against the Chinese government created tensions between China and the U.S. Google proved itself powerful enough to win.
The direct influence Google search has in shaping these global political opinions is examined in the study: “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries” (2010). The article argues that because Google provides information about urban policy analysis in developing countries a hegemonic policy perspective is formed when urban policy issues are googled. Researchers believe that Google organizes this information in a way that contributes to this hegemonic behavior and limits information on alternative policy viewpoints. These claims are explored through googling certain search terms and three claims are made: that the World Bank, Cities Alliance and UN Habitat dominate explanations of urban policy, that googling these issues contributes to the dominance, and that Google serves these interests when these institutions own the concepts that the public uses for keywords in their search. The study concluded that Google ultimately excludes alternative policy viewpoints and finding them through the search engine takes times, perseverance and previous knowledge of the policy area.
This study is a direct example of how Google has set its own policy agendas. Not only does this suggest the company acts as a nation-state, but the research also relates back to how Google can act as a pervasive force in controlling how individuals understand global communities. The fact that Google promotes certain viewpoints through its search engine suggests that it has become a powerful company that is able to decide what global issues are important and how those issues should be represented in the online world. The study concludes that the Google search engine does seem to make certain information available to the public, however more research needs to be conducted to find whether this is done intentionally. Theorists also need to examine how search results determine the mind set of users.
Google’s growth has changed modern culture and significantly affects the way global communities view the world. Previous research strongly suggests that Google’s hegemonic role in society can be summarized using three themes. First, the online innovation of office software and cloud computing has empowered Google to become a hegemonic force that controls how global communities search for, find and store information. Second, Google has changed how users around the world obtain information. Studies on these social implications show that the majority of users trust Google results, suggesting that the search engine acts as a pervasive force and controls how global communities understand the world. Finally, Google has become powerful enough to act politically on a national and global level, concluding that the company is a powerful empire that acts as a nation-state to achieve its own policy agendas. The research discussed in this study has concluded that the continual growth of the empire has changed - and will continue to change - the way the internet is used everyday around the world, but gaps in knowledge still remain in fully understanding and predicting the role of Google in the future. Overall, more research is needed to specifically determine how Google’s ambitions will continue to change global culture and how internet users can use Google as a tool without allowing the website to control individual learning experiences.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Final Project Work Cited
(2010, November 30). Google Inc. The New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from
http://topics.nytimes.com/ top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=google&st=cse
Auletta, K. (2009). Googled: The end of the world as we know it. New York: Penguin Press.
Battelle, J. (2005). The search: How Google and its rivals rewrote the rules of business and
transformed our culture. New York: Penguin Group.
Bermejo, F. (2009). Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to
Google. New Media & Society. 11, 133-154. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099579. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/11/1-2/133.full.pdf+html.
Boorstin, B. (2010, November 16). Promoting Free Trade for the Internet Economy. Public
Policy Blog: Google’s views on government, policy and politics blog. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/11/promoting-free-trade-for-internet.html.
Bradsher, K. (2010, November 16). Google sees rules violations in limits on internet access. The New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010 /11/17/technology/17google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google%20policy&st=cse
Corbin, K. (2008, November 21). And now a peek at Google’s D.C. Agenda. Internet News.com.
Retrieved December 14, 2010 from http://www.internetnews.com/infra/ article.php/3786511/And-Now-a-Peek-at-Googles-DC-Agenda.htm
Gunter, B., Rowlands, I., and Nicholas, D. (2009). The Google generation: are ICT innovations
changing information=seeking behavior? Cambridge, UK: Chandos.
Hellsten, I., Leydesdorff, L., and Wouters, P. (2006). Multiple presents: How search engines
rewrite the past. New Media & Society. 8(6), 901-924. Doi: 10.1177/1461444806069648. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/8/6/901.full.pdf+html.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G. & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we
trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 3.
Stross, R. (2008). Planet Google: One company’s audacious plan to organize everything we
know. New York: Free Press.
Tomlinson, R., et al. (2010). The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 34(1), 174-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933. Retrieved online from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933.x/pdf.
U.S. Public Policy. Public policy blog: Google’s views on government, policy and politics blog.
Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/.
Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media,
Culture & Society. 31, 41-58. doi 10.1177/0163443708098245. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2638/content/31/1/41.full.pdf+html.
Van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International
Journal of Cultural Studies. 13(6). doi 10.1177/1367877910376582. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2492/content/13/6/574.full.pdf+html.
Wiley, J, et.al. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science
inquiry tasks. American Educational Research journal. 46(4), 1060-1106. Doi: 10.3102/0002831209333183. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2253/
content/46/4/1060.full.pdf+html.
http://topics.nytimes.com/ top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=google&st=cse
Auletta, K. (2009). Googled: The end of the world as we know it. New York: Penguin Press.
Battelle, J. (2005). The search: How Google and its rivals rewrote the rules of business and
transformed our culture. New York: Penguin Group.
Bermejo, F. (2009). Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to
Google. New Media & Society. 11, 133-154. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099579. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/11/1-2/133.full.pdf+html.
Boorstin, B. (2010, November 16). Promoting Free Trade for the Internet Economy. Public
Policy Blog: Google’s views on government, policy and politics blog. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/11/promoting-free-trade-for-internet.html.
Bradsher, K. (2010, November 16). Google sees rules violations in limits on internet access. The New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010 /11/17/technology/17google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google%20policy&st=cse
Corbin, K. (2008, November 21). And now a peek at Google’s D.C. Agenda. Internet News.com.
Retrieved December 14, 2010 from http://www.internetnews.com/infra/ article.php/3786511/And-Now-a-Peek-at-Googles-DC-Agenda.htm
Gunter, B., Rowlands, I., and Nicholas, D. (2009). The Google generation: are ICT innovations
changing information=seeking behavior? Cambridge, UK: Chandos.
Hellsten, I., Leydesdorff, L., and Wouters, P. (2006). Multiple presents: How search engines
rewrite the past. New Media & Society. 8(6), 901-924. Doi: 10.1177/1461444806069648. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/8/6/901.full.pdf+html.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G. & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we
trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 3.
Stross, R. (2008). Planet Google: One company’s audacious plan to organize everything we
know. New York: Free Press.
Tomlinson, R., et al. (2010). The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 34(1), 174-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933. Retrieved online from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933.x/pdf.
U.S. Public Policy. Public policy blog: Google’s views on government, policy and politics blog.
Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/.
Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media,
Culture & Society. 31, 41-58. doi 10.1177/0163443708098245. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2638/content/31/1/41.full.pdf+html.
Van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International
Journal of Cultural Studies. 13(6). doi 10.1177/1367877910376582. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2492/content/13/6/574.full.pdf+html.
Wiley, J, et.al. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science
inquiry tasks. American Educational Research journal. 46(4), 1060-1106. Doi: 10.3102/0002831209333183. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2253/
content/46/4/1060.full.pdf+html.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Tweeting
Lately I've been wondering: what's the deal with Twitter? Being more of a Facebook girl myself I never had the desire to engage in yet another social networking website that would consume more of my valuable time and turn it into wasted minutes. Yet Twitter seems to continually be growing more popular, and it makes me wonder whether it may actually offer more to the world than just being another addicting webpage.
Recently I stumbled across this article that I found especially interesting about Twitter's popularity and purpose. According to Bilton, 8 percent of American internet users can be found on Twitter. Now in all actuality this is a rather small population, considering how much traffic the internet actually gets. The article also claims that of that 8 percent, 2 percent of Americans said they were extremely active and use the site every day.
The article also quoted the researchers of the study:
"[Twitter] is one of the most popular online activities among tech enthusiasts and has become a widely used tool among analysts to study the conversations and interests of users, buzz about news, products or services."
As one of the 92 percent of Americans who probably don't know very much about Twitter in the first place, I was surprised when the article implied that Twitter isn't necessarily used for entertainment and social connection as much as I had originally thought. Instead, it seems to be a huge global marketplace of news, advertising and even research.
This isn't to say that Twitter isn't used for fun as well. If it wasn't, I would venture to guess that the total American population using the site would be way less than 8 percent. But reading the article got me thinking that maybe I misjudged Twitter. Rather than another online social networking option, maybe its taken a different route and has become more of a free, global marketplace. So how is Twitter affecting world culture, and how is Twitter influencing how people receive and interpret information?
If you're interested in learning more about Twitter, I also found this article interesting: "Tracking the National Mood Through Twitter."
Recently I stumbled across this article that I found especially interesting about Twitter's popularity and purpose. According to Bilton, 8 percent of American internet users can be found on Twitter. Now in all actuality this is a rather small population, considering how much traffic the internet actually gets. The article also claims that of that 8 percent, 2 percent of Americans said they were extremely active and use the site every day.
The article also quoted the researchers of the study:
"[Twitter] is one of the most popular online activities among tech enthusiasts and has become a widely used tool among analysts to study the conversations and interests of users, buzz about news, products or services."
As one of the 92 percent of Americans who probably don't know very much about Twitter in the first place, I was surprised when the article implied that Twitter isn't necessarily used for entertainment and social connection as much as I had originally thought. Instead, it seems to be a huge global marketplace of news, advertising and even research.
This isn't to say that Twitter isn't used for fun as well. If it wasn't, I would venture to guess that the total American population using the site would be way less than 8 percent. But reading the article got me thinking that maybe I misjudged Twitter. Rather than another online social networking option, maybe its taken a different route and has become more of a free, global marketplace. So how is Twitter affecting world culture, and how is Twitter influencing how people receive and interpret information?
If you're interested in learning more about Twitter, I also found this article interesting: "Tracking the National Mood Through Twitter."
Monday, December 6, 2010
So many questions... if I only I could Google them...
My final research project for this class is going to be focused around Google. Through my blogging I've found that Google is an absolutely fascinating corporation that is steadily expanding and globalizing our world. I will be looking at previous case-studies and the research of other theorists to find out how Google is changing the way society operates. So far I've settled on three themes that the majority of my research seems to fall under:
(1) Google is a hegemonic force that affects how society obtains and stores information.
(2) Because society often trusts (and chooses to trust) Google results, we are subjected to a small amount of information that ultimately affects (and can determine) how we view the world.
(3) Google is a continually growing and expanding empire that could have the potential to monopolize the information of our future.
Yet as I begin my project, I still have some questions.
- Is Google's success a result of cultural theory? Or is it simply a result of people being lazy?
- Is it actually feasible for Google to have the potential to store 100% of the world's information?
- Is Google ethical?
- How has Google become a leading source of advertising? How does this affect how people recieve information? Do I want to incorporate this aspect of the business into my literature review?
Research and studies about Google have only just begun to infiltrate themselves into a Communication Theory marketplace, but in ten - or even five - years it will be interesting to look back at my study of Google and see how these questions are answered.
(1) Google is a hegemonic force that affects how society obtains and stores information.
(2) Because society often trusts (and chooses to trust) Google results, we are subjected to a small amount of information that ultimately affects (and can determine) how we view the world.
(3) Google is a continually growing and expanding empire that could have the potential to monopolize the information of our future.
Yet as I begin my project, I still have some questions.
- Is Google's success a result of cultural theory? Or is it simply a result of people being lazy?
- Is it actually feasible for Google to have the potential to store 100% of the world's information?
- Is Google ethical?
- How has Google become a leading source of advertising? How does this affect how people recieve information? Do I want to incorporate this aspect of the business into my literature review?
Research and studies about Google have only just begun to infiltrate themselves into a Communication Theory marketplace, but in ten - or even five - years it will be interesting to look back at my study of Google and see how these questions are answered.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Annotated Bibliography
Auletta, K. (2009). Googled: The end of the world as we know it. New York: Penguin Press.
This book discusses how Google has grown and how it has changed the way people live and how corporations are run. Auletta outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the company, specifically the company’s “Don’t be evil” mission statement and how it has grown to include Gmail, Google maps and Youtube alongside the traditional search bar. The book also discusses the future of the company as well as concerns that users and the government have over whether Google’s goal to store 100 percent of user’s information will be an invasion of privacy.
Bermejo, F. (2009). Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to
Google. New Media & Society. 11, 133-154. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099579. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/11/1-2/133.full.pdf+html.
In this article, Bermejo analyzes empirical research and historical comparisons to define new media and determine how audiences are manufactured. He pays particular attention to the ‘blindspot debate,’ which argues that audiences become a commodity when exposed to advertiser-supported communication media (137) such as search engines. Bermejo examines how Google’s adwords program works, observing that advertising depends on keywords entered by the user and is not necessarily controlled by the advertiser (149). Based on this, Bermejo argues that in new media, online advertising has shifted to a market of words and cannot be measured by amount of exposure.
Hellsten, I., Leydesdorff, L., and Wouters, P. (2006). Multiple presents: How search engines rewrite the past. New Media & Society. 8(6),901-924. Doi: 10.1177/1461444806069648. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/8/6/901.full.pdf+html.
The purpose of this study was to determine how search engines perform in searching and finding websites that have continuously been updated or changed. The researchers argue that as search engines update their algorithms and lose older website, large periods of time and information are lost when users attempt to conduct academic research. The study was conducted by searching for a piece of information using Alta Vista and Google at different increments of time. It was found that over time the results of the search and the structure of the desired information had changed or eroded. Although this affects how users are affected by their searches, the researchers agree that search engines are still beneficial if users are taught to effectively retrieve information from specific periods of time.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G. & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 3.
The purpose of this case study is to determine how trustworthy users believe Google is in ranking their search results. Google was chosen for its popularity in modern culture as well as the subjects’ previous knowledge and experience in using it. The researchers of the study were interested in discovering whether the site’s success is due to the efficiency of its ranking as opposed to the users’ trust in the results provided to them. The intentions of the results are to provide information on designing better search engines as well as research the influence search engines have on society and culture today.
Stross, R. (2008). Planet Google: One company’s audacious plan to organize everything we
know. New York: Free Press.
Planet Google outlines the founding of the Google Corporation and the history as a growing company. The book discusses Gmail, Google books, Google earth, Google scholar and YouTube and discusses how these different technologies have contributed to make Google a globalized source and gatekeeper of information. It also examines Google’s present and future business strategies, specifically the company’s “cloud computing” plan, with the goal of users eventually storing all of their personal data on a single Google server.
Thurman, N. (2007). The globalization of journalism online: A transatlantic study of news
websites and their international readers. Journalism. 8 (3, June), 285-307. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2184/content/8/3/285.full.pdf+html.
Thurman analyzes the role and popularity of online news sources, specifically BBC news, Fox news, USA today, etc. He argues that demand for these sources depends largely on the popularity of indexes, such as Google News searches, that promote them to internet users. He discusses the relationship between these news sources and their audiences, demonstrating that some news sources view an international audience as an unstable source of revenue while others welcome the opportunity to sell advertisements to a larger demographic. Thurman argues that this globalized audience is able to connect with journalists through feedback and an immediate connection.
Tomlinson, R., et al. (2010). The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 34(1), 174-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933. Retrieved online from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933.x/pdf.
In this case-study, Tomlinson, et. al argue that because Google provides information about urban policy analysis in developing countries a hegemonic policy perspective is formed when urban policy issues are googled in the company’s search engine. The researchers believe that Google organizes this information in a way that contributes to this hegemonic behavior and limits information on alternative policy viewpoints. These claims are explored through googling certain search terms and three claims are made: that the World Bank, Cities Alliance and UN Habitat dominate explanations of urban policy, that googling these issues contributes to the dominance, and that Google serves these interests when these institutions own the concepts that the public uses for keywords in their search.
Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media,
Culture & Society. 31, 41-58. doi 10.1177/0163443708098245. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2638/content/31/1/41.full.pdf+html.
In this article, Dijck looks at the role of users in new media. He argues that this is a complex relationship because users take on cultural and economic roles as producers, consumers, data providers and participators in online media. Dijck demonstrates this complex relationship between user and medium using Google’s YouTube as an example, stating that YouTube has become a company that focuses on the integration of “search engines with content, social networking and advertising” (43). He argues that in order to understand the relationship between new media technologies and society, researchers should find a new approach that uses ideas from cultural theory and addresses economic and labor relations (43).
Van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 13(6). doi 10.1177/1367877910376582. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2492/content/13/6/574.full.pdf+html.
The purpose of this study was to examine how Google Scholar and other search engines have become significant tools in conducting academic research and obtaining general knowledge. Van Dijck argues that new users commonly trust search engines to provide them with correct information, without a “basic understanding of the economic, political and socio-cultural dimensions of search engines” (576). Van Dijck suggests that as these technologies are used as basic tools for research it is detrimental that students are taught how to evaluate and effectively use the information they find (587).
Wiley, J, et.al. Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research journal. 46(4), 1060-1106. Doi: 10.3102/0002831209333183. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2253/content/46/4/1060.full.pdf+html.
In this case-study, researchers conducted two experiments to determine the importance of users evaluating sources obtained using search engines. Subjects in the first experiment were told to find and explanation for the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The results showed that there was a positive relationship between source evaluation and learning outcomes. In the second experiment, users were asked to determine the reliability of the sources. This study showed that students who had previous instruction in evaluating sources comprehended the information for effectively. The researchers concluded that evaluation of sources is crucial to successful learning.
This book discusses how Google has grown and how it has changed the way people live and how corporations are run. Auletta outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the company, specifically the company’s “Don’t be evil” mission statement and how it has grown to include Gmail, Google maps and Youtube alongside the traditional search bar. The book also discusses the future of the company as well as concerns that users and the government have over whether Google’s goal to store 100 percent of user’s information will be an invasion of privacy.
Bermejo, F. (2009). Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to
Google. New Media & Society. 11, 133-154. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099579. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/11/1-2/133.full.pdf+html.
In this article, Bermejo analyzes empirical research and historical comparisons to define new media and determine how audiences are manufactured. He pays particular attention to the ‘blindspot debate,’ which argues that audiences become a commodity when exposed to advertiser-supported communication media (137) such as search engines. Bermejo examines how Google’s adwords program works, observing that advertising depends on keywords entered by the user and is not necessarily controlled by the advertiser (149). Based on this, Bermejo argues that in new media, online advertising has shifted to a market of words and cannot be measured by amount of exposure.
Hellsten, I., Leydesdorff, L., and Wouters, P. (2006). Multiple presents: How search engines rewrite the past. New Media & Society. 8(6),901-924. Doi: 10.1177/1461444806069648. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2286/content/8/6/901.full.pdf+html.
The purpose of this study was to determine how search engines perform in searching and finding websites that have continuously been updated or changed. The researchers argue that as search engines update their algorithms and lose older website, large periods of time and information are lost when users attempt to conduct academic research. The study was conducted by searching for a piece of information using Alta Vista and Google at different increments of time. It was found that over time the results of the search and the structure of the desired information had changed or eroded. Although this affects how users are affected by their searches, the researchers agree that search engines are still beneficial if users are taught to effectively retrieve information from specific periods of time.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G. & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 3.
The purpose of this case study is to determine how trustworthy users believe Google is in ranking their search results. Google was chosen for its popularity in modern culture as well as the subjects’ previous knowledge and experience in using it. The researchers of the study were interested in discovering whether the site’s success is due to the efficiency of its ranking as opposed to the users’ trust in the results provided to them. The intentions of the results are to provide information on designing better search engines as well as research the influence search engines have on society and culture today.
Stross, R. (2008). Planet Google: One company’s audacious plan to organize everything we
know. New York: Free Press.
Planet Google outlines the founding of the Google Corporation and the history as a growing company. The book discusses Gmail, Google books, Google earth, Google scholar and YouTube and discusses how these different technologies have contributed to make Google a globalized source and gatekeeper of information. It also examines Google’s present and future business strategies, specifically the company’s “cloud computing” plan, with the goal of users eventually storing all of their personal data on a single Google server.
Thurman, N. (2007). The globalization of journalism online: A transatlantic study of news
websites and their international readers. Journalism. 8 (3, June), 285-307. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2184/content/8/3/285.full.pdf+html.
Thurman analyzes the role and popularity of online news sources, specifically BBC news, Fox news, USA today, etc. He argues that demand for these sources depends largely on the popularity of indexes, such as Google News searches, that promote them to internet users. He discusses the relationship between these news sources and their audiences, demonstrating that some news sources view an international audience as an unstable source of revenue while others welcome the opportunity to sell advertisements to a larger demographic. Thurman argues that this globalized audience is able to connect with journalists through feedback and an immediate connection.
Tomlinson, R., et al. (2010). The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 34(1), 174-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933. Retrieved online from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00933.x/pdf.
In this case-study, Tomlinson, et. al argue that because Google provides information about urban policy analysis in developing countries a hegemonic policy perspective is formed when urban policy issues are googled in the company’s search engine. The researchers believe that Google organizes this information in a way that contributes to this hegemonic behavior and limits information on alternative policy viewpoints. These claims are explored through googling certain search terms and three claims are made: that the World Bank, Cities Alliance and UN Habitat dominate explanations of urban policy, that googling these issues contributes to the dominance, and that Google serves these interests when these institutions own the concepts that the public uses for keywords in their search.
Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media,
Culture & Society. 31, 41-58. doi 10.1177/0163443708098245. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2638/content/31/1/41.full.pdf+html.
In this article, Dijck looks at the role of users in new media. He argues that this is a complex relationship because users take on cultural and economic roles as producers, consumers, data providers and participators in online media. Dijck demonstrates this complex relationship between user and medium using Google’s YouTube as an example, stating that YouTube has become a company that focuses on the integration of “search engines with content, social networking and advertising” (43). He argues that in order to understand the relationship between new media technologies and society, researchers should find a new approach that uses ideas from cultural theory and addresses economic and labor relations (43).
Van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 13(6). doi 10.1177/1367877910376582. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2492/content/13/6/574.full.pdf+html.
The purpose of this study was to examine how Google Scholar and other search engines have become significant tools in conducting academic research and obtaining general knowledge. Van Dijck argues that new users commonly trust search engines to provide them with correct information, without a “basic understanding of the economic, political and socio-cultural dimensions of search engines” (576). Van Dijck suggests that as these technologies are used as basic tools for research it is detrimental that students are taught how to evaluate and effectively use the information they find (587).
Wiley, J, et.al. Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research journal. 46(4), 1060-1106. Doi: 10.3102/0002831209333183. Retrieved online from http://ezproxy.hamline.edu:2253/content/46/4/1060.full.pdf+html.
In this case-study, researchers conducted two experiments to determine the importance of users evaluating sources obtained using search engines. Subjects in the first experiment were told to find and explanation for the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The results showed that there was a positive relationship between source evaluation and learning outcomes. In the second experiment, users were asked to determine the reliability of the sources. This study showed that students who had previous instruction in evaluating sources comprehended the information for effectively. The researchers concluded that evaluation of sources is crucial to successful learning.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Have [Google Maps], Will Travel
Today my friend and co-worker took me to his house and showed me around his hometown - right from behind the front counter at which we work. Who knew Google maps could be so entertaining?
Just when I think Google has exhausted its supply of innovative ideas it ends up surprising me. Now not only can Google provide a bird's eye view satellite image of the places we want to see, but if you zoom in far enough you can actually virtually stand and walk along still images of highways or county streets and turn in a circle to view your surroundings.
After my friend showed me this I got curious. So, via Google maps, I ventured down the street in my home town and stood in front of my house. I walked down the street for awhile before I realized I could get crazy. So I typed in "Times Square, New York" and walked down Broadway for awhile. Then I went to Dublin, Ireland. I even viewed Tokyo, Japan at night.
Of course, technology like this comes with its problems. Just a few weeks ago, Nicaraguan military used Google maps to determine its borders against Costa Rica. Unfortunately, Google had accidentally mislabeled a Costa Rican river as Nicaragua territory,causing an invasion by Nicaraguan troops. Fortunately the mistake was caught, but this incident goes to show how depend the world is on Google and its resources (especially if it's being used to direct military tactics).
It also comes with its questions. The first question that comes to mind is whether Google maps technology is an invasion of my privacy. Do I really want anyone in the world have the ability to see where I live? It's a scary thought, especially considering how easy it is to access a person's address simply by typing in their name or land-line phone number into Google search.
Despite its ethical implications, t astounds me that now, thanks to Google, I can not only read about any place in the world I want, but I can virtually tour that place as if I'm really there. Now, the next time I travel I can see where I'm going before I even get there.
Of course, Google maps is no substitute for actually being in these places, but on a cold, snowy day in Minnesota I wouldn't mind a virtual tour in Hawaii.
Just when I think Google has exhausted its supply of innovative ideas it ends up surprising me. Now not only can Google provide a bird's eye view satellite image of the places we want to see, but if you zoom in far enough you can actually virtually stand and walk along still images of highways or county streets and turn in a circle to view your surroundings.
After my friend showed me this I got curious. So, via Google maps, I ventured down the street in my home town and stood in front of my house. I walked down the street for awhile before I realized I could get crazy. So I typed in "Times Square, New York" and walked down Broadway for awhile. Then I went to Dublin, Ireland. I even viewed Tokyo, Japan at night.
Of course, technology like this comes with its problems. Just a few weeks ago, Nicaraguan military used Google maps to determine its borders against Costa Rica. Unfortunately, Google had accidentally mislabeled a Costa Rican river as Nicaragua territory,causing an invasion by Nicaraguan troops. Fortunately the mistake was caught, but this incident goes to show how depend the world is on Google and its resources (especially if it's being used to direct military tactics).
It also comes with its questions. The first question that comes to mind is whether Google maps technology is an invasion of my privacy. Do I really want anyone in the world have the ability to see where I live? It's a scary thought, especially considering how easy it is to access a person's address simply by typing in their name or land-line phone number into Google search.
Despite its ethical implications, t astounds me that now, thanks to Google, I can not only read about any place in the world I want, but I can virtually tour that place as if I'm really there. Now, the next time I travel I can see where I'm going before I even get there.
Of course, Google maps is no substitute for actually being in these places, but on a cold, snowy day in Minnesota I wouldn't mind a virtual tour in Hawaii.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Living Without Television
This past week, my mass communication class was engaged in an assignment during which we could not watch television for 72 hours.
Needless to say, this proved to be more difficult that I could have originally imaged.
At the beginning of our 72 hour period, I admit I allowed myself to feel a little too over-confident. I don’t watch a lot of television during the school year – at least not compared to many college students I know – so in my mind this “fasting” of TV was going to be a piece of cake. No problem.
Yet isn’t it always the same story: you never quite know how much you depend on something until you can’t have it anymore.
The very day that the assignment began, I found out that there was going to be a recount of votes for the governor’s election in Minnesota, where I go to school. Whenever I would return to my dorm room after a class, my roommate would be nestled on our futon in front of our beautiful flat screen TV, listening to the commentator reflect on the candidates, the close race and the recount that was unfolding before her. Yet I had to force myself to turn my head as a walked past, arguing against the tiny little part of me that wanted to throw caution to the wind and break the terms of the assignment…
But I prevailed. Instead, I listened sullenly to the newscaster relaying the events, and then I kept myself informed by frequently visiting online news sources and bothering my friends with requests for updates on all the drama. In fact, I realized that without television I depended on the people around me for a lot of my information, whether it was the election or a plot overview of my favorite shows.
Probably the hardest part of the experiment was how it affected my social life. I never realized how central TV is when I am in a social situation. When I was babysitting one night, I realized that Bob the Builder is the most interesting show in the world when it’s in front of me and I’m not allowed to watch it. During my friend’s birthday party, I had to hope and pray that we would end up playing a game instead of watching his favorite movie (thankfully we did…).
One day, I was looking up music on YouTube with a friend, and it wasn’t until I was 30 seconds into a music video that I realized I had been absorbed in the moving images without even considering that I shouldn’t be. Situations like this are so fundamental in my everyday life, and I that fact that I had to purposefully avoid them tells me that TV is more constant than I had previously believed.
For three days, I survived by using the internet, newspapers and word of mouth as my new favorite mediums. It was more difficult than I thought it would be, but in a way it was nice not having that distraction.
I sure got an awful lot of homework done.
Needless to say, this proved to be more difficult that I could have originally imaged.
At the beginning of our 72 hour period, I admit I allowed myself to feel a little too over-confident. I don’t watch a lot of television during the school year – at least not compared to many college students I know – so in my mind this “fasting” of TV was going to be a piece of cake. No problem.
Yet isn’t it always the same story: you never quite know how much you depend on something until you can’t have it anymore.
The very day that the assignment began, I found out that there was going to be a recount of votes for the governor’s election in Minnesota, where I go to school. Whenever I would return to my dorm room after a class, my roommate would be nestled on our futon in front of our beautiful flat screen TV, listening to the commentator reflect on the candidates, the close race and the recount that was unfolding before her. Yet I had to force myself to turn my head as a walked past, arguing against the tiny little part of me that wanted to throw caution to the wind and break the terms of the assignment…
But I prevailed. Instead, I listened sullenly to the newscaster relaying the events, and then I kept myself informed by frequently visiting online news sources and bothering my friends with requests for updates on all the drama. In fact, I realized that without television I depended on the people around me for a lot of my information, whether it was the election or a plot overview of my favorite shows.
Probably the hardest part of the experiment was how it affected my social life. I never realized how central TV is when I am in a social situation. When I was babysitting one night, I realized that Bob the Builder is the most interesting show in the world when it’s in front of me and I’m not allowed to watch it. During my friend’s birthday party, I had to hope and pray that we would end up playing a game instead of watching his favorite movie (thankfully we did…).
One day, I was looking up music on YouTube with a friend, and it wasn’t until I was 30 seconds into a music video that I realized I had been absorbed in the moving images without even considering that I shouldn’t be. Situations like this are so fundamental in my everyday life, and I that fact that I had to purposefully avoid them tells me that TV is more constant than I had previously believed.
For three days, I survived by using the internet, newspapers and word of mouth as my new favorite mediums. It was more difficult than I thought it would be, but in a way it was nice not having that distraction.
I sure got an awful lot of homework done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)