Rainbows End

1) Although most of the book seems to look at technology as a kind of scary and potentially devastating thing to society and old ways of literacy, I believe Vinge accepts the ways in which technology is changing our world.  I think this is less of a book about the pros and cons of technological advances and more of a story about what might happen to society and attitudes towards literacy in the future.  I say this because Vinge doesn’t seem to be demonizing or supporting this new way of life through augmented reality and mediated commonplace, rather the book takes an almost satirical and neutral stance on these topics.  I think the better question to ask is whether or not this type of world is better for information gathering, culture and education?  Even though the reality of what Vinge describes will most likely not be reached in our lifetimes or our children’s, it is interesting to think that our world is slowly moving towards this type of augmented reality that is so every prevalent in Rainbows End.  We see the beginnings of this with Facebook check- in’s and Googles Goggles; in addition to some kinds of AR advertising through mobile phones.  More and more, we are seeing a world being looked at through mobile and stationary devices such as a computer or smart phone.

8) Robert Gu is the perfect protagonist for many reasons and represents a kind of person who is stuck in the past and has to (almost unwillingly) adjust and adapt to this new kind of technological world dominated by third party devices.  Vinge did a great job at creating a situation that was both new to Gu and to the reader.  Essentially allowing the reader to understand and learn about this new and complicated world, just as Gu does.  It allows for a more vivid and interesting story as the reader isn’t trying to play catch up with what is happening.  The evolution of Gu’s character almost mirrors that of someone who begins to slowly accept his or her new environment and finds a way to fit in as Gu did when he develops an algorithm that helps fix some of the bugs involved with the haptics system used in video games. 

I thought the way Vinge portrayed Gu was great because it gave the audience something to relate to and understand. 

Responses to Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid."

Although in the past I have disagreed with much of what Clay Shirky has proposed, I chose his response to Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making us Stupid” essay as a good example of a thoughtful rebuttal.  Instead of attacking Carr’s argument that new technologies and computer programmers of these new technologies are largely to blame for societies shift from “deep reading” to “surface skimming,” Shirky creates a new argument proposing Carr’s essay is less about thinking and reading and more about an entire culture change.  I find it helpful when debating an issue if one begins to argue on a separate and more isolated point as Shirky did.  For example, Shirky didn’t argue that these new technologies are affecting societies reading practices.  In fact he embraced this claim.  Shirky decided to look at Carr’s essay as more of a cultural shift rather than an attack on literacy and thinking.  Overall I found this change of topic and focused argument often gets my attention more than does someone who just attacks the obvious main claims of another.

In addition I chose another rebuttal that was done in much the same way as Shirky’s.  Like Shirky, Douglas Rushkoff focuses less on Carr’s main claim that new technologies are endorsing less thinking and reducing reading and argues whether or not this can be seen as, in Rushkoff’s words, “a net gain or a net loss.”  Again arguing a separate isolated issue is more convincing and easier to prove than trying to attack the meat of Carr’s main claim, so to speak.  For example, it is obvious that much of what Google and other new internet technologies has done is create an abundance of information which has led to shortened attention spans and shorter texts.  It is hard to argue this point.  However, Rushkoff takes a different avenue and questions whether this is a bad or good thing or a smart or dumb thing for cultures. 

All in all I felt these two rebuttals portrayed a good understanding of how to disagree and argue a point without getting into a he said she said type of argument.  Each person, Shirky and Rushkoff, found two problems outside of the main claim and attacked those in a logical and thoughtful manner.  As to my own ideas on the internet and literacy, I do share many of the same ideas that were pointed out in both rebuttals.  This may help to influence why I thought they were effective.  In any case, I believe these two writers developed two very good rebuttals. 

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/07/why-abundance-is-good-a-reply-to-nick-carr/ - Clay Shirky

http://www.edge.org/discourse/carr_google.html#sanger – Douglas Rushkoff

"The Lost Art of Political Argument"- Lasch

Christopher Lasch has an interesting point of view on literacy as it relates to democracy and modern society.  Lasch claims the key to a successful democracy and political system is “public debate, not information,” (Lasch).  He goes on to defend this position by stating that only relevant information can be obtained from this kind of public debate.  In other words, pertinent information can only be found if the correct questions are asked through the debating process, which in Lasch’s eyes has declined rapidly over the years.  Lasch disagrees with the popular notion that information fuels debate and purposes it is more influenced and better described by the latter. 

Lasch does have a valid point that during certain kinds of “intelligent public debates” important questions do arise and give people a direction in which to look for related information.  However, where I believe his argument is flawed is in his idea that all information relating to democracy comes from public debate and not prior research.  I would argue in order to have an intelligent debate; one that produces relevant questions, those participants must be equipped with some sort of related data, facts stats etc. in order to engage in a meaningful conversation.  For example, two people debating about the death penalty will most likely not generate any applicable questions when both parties know nothing about the issue and point behind it.  The conversation will move around in a circle and the kind of meaningful information that Lasch hopes to get out of questions posed in the debate will not be present. 

I do agree that in debates where both parties do have some prior knowledge about the issue, questions can be posed that provide a guide for further research and increased public knowledge.  This in affect will help to create a more educated and informed society.  Thus for Lasch’s idea on literacy and democracy to work, intelligent and meaningful debate must occur first and not second. 

Are Newspapers Doomed?

The idea that newspapers are forced to “unbundle” as they turn digital is a very interesting observation that in my opinion holds true in many aspects.  This becomes a problem like Nicholas Carr alluded to when newspapers are primarily funded by advertisers.  Carr suggests the definition of a “successful” article has changed from good, detailed reporting to those that are able to attract a high amount of readers that click on advertisements.  This puts a lot of pressure on digital newspapers to only publish stories that advertisers want to advertise on and leave out many important humanitarian, political, social and worldly articles that wouldn’t necessarily be conducive for an advertiser’s message.  For example, most advertisers wouldn’t want to be associated with articles regarding government corruption or a new outbreak of AIDS.  Thus these important issues and stories have the potential to be left out in order for the newspaper to make money. 

Looking at this move from physical to digital, newspapers are becoming less of news and more catered toward advertising messages.  The solution lies not in trying to find a perfect balance between the two, but to find a way for digital newspapers to make a profit without solely relying on advertising.  Easier said than done, I’m sure.

Shirky: Everyone is a Media Outlet

Clay Shirky is among one of new media’s most vocal theorists. Shirky along with other traditional media doomsdayers like Charles Leadbeater, claim to have found some future outcomes to the multiple social changes created by the internet.  Shirky’s main claim relies on the fact that professional journalists will soon cease to exist.  His theory is based on this notion of growing “amateurization” in the media. 

According to Shirky, since anyone can publish anything at any time and their content is instantly published to the world, then anyone can be a journalist.  This of course begs the question of future authenticity in new media and the potential downfall of the traditional meaning of professional journalism.  What will happen to journalistic ethics if anyone can do this? 

The worry is these rules and ethical standards will go flying out the window and be replaced with a bunch of mindless amateurs filling the public’s brain with nonsense.  However it is hard to see a difference when “professional journalists” write articles about what kind of toothpaste Amanda Knox bought when she made a brief visit to the store.

Furthermore what does it mean to be a professional journalist versus and amateur journalist?  To be professional does one have to be paid or follow a certain set of ethical guidelines, or both?  Some “amateur bloggers” fit into both these categories.  Is it better and safer to say the definition of professional journalism and how it is broadcasted to the public will alter?

I do not believe a team of bloggers or the internet will be responsible for the ultimate death of professional journalism.  There is a certain standard and honesty that society has come to believe and expect from large news corporations that a thousand bloggers, tweeters or social media users cannot earn in the near future.  This worry about amateurazation and the potential for fabrication in this new media climate is ironically paralleled with the already established journalistic corruption within much of the larger news corporations today.  Take Fox News Corporation for example.  Need I say anything more?  Is this type of reporting called “traditional journalism?”  Or how about all the important social stories people do not hear about because it conflicts with the news media’s parent company’s views or stock price. 

On the other hand, this movement to professionalism to amateurism does bring up some legitimate concerns.  Yet the one detail Shirky and others like him neglect to mention is that news media, and all media generated content for that matter, is expensive, hard to do and even harder to do well.  In addition, media companies control a billion dollar industry and I will be surprised if they do not adapt their business model to the changing times. 

All in all, these changes tend to bring about new job openings and create more competition to an otherwise stagnant and corporate dominated market.  What people will ultimately do with these opportunities and new technology cannot be known for sure.  Yet I am certain we will all learn to adapt and create new policies and new standards without compromising our current values and ethics.  Or at least have the illusion that we have.