Networks - Dependance

The history of networking electronically in s sense, is brief. Man kind has only been able to interact socially electronically since the first cable's where laid down across vast oceans. When you think of networking, you think of the internet, and communication between two or more individuals over a small to a vast global distance and even to the ISS 'International space station'. Its everything now, the internet is essential a cybernetic web which links all commuters, PDA, phones and pretty much every digital wireless device together digitally. One of our readings for our Media Cultures module describes all networks as the 'nervous system of society', which is absolutely one hundred percent correct!

The word networks can be used to describe anything that links to another thing of identical properties, for example a canal network, road network, telephone network or even network of streams. In terms of electronic communication networks, this has been in existence non stop since the first telegraph was invented in around 1830. We are still discovering new ways of expanding and inventing new ways of networking.

'So, networks organise relations within and between levels or units of social reality' (P28. the network societies and other classifications (chap 2),

That is what i would see as being spot on when defining the term 'network', and in my opinion gives the best possible approach of understanding the term without confusion, and after some consideration, thats exactly what 'Social Networking' is.
Social networks are an unavoidable subject of discussion when speaking about networks, in modern day society, social networking is dominant in the worlds leading countries.

'98 percent of the U.S. online population uses social media... the 800-million user network reaches 55 percent of the world’s audience' (http://www.foliomag.com/2011/report-98-percent-u-s-online-population-uses-social-networks). 

 That is a HUGE number of individuals using social networking sites, 55 percent may not seem as much, but thing of how many people there are on this rock, its estimated that there are over 7Billion people on this planet, therefore it must mean that at least 3.5Billion people are using social networking websites. I don't think when they first laid those transatlantic cables down under the vast oceans of this planet that one day, over half the worlds population, (keeping in mind these are the people who can afford computes and internet access) would be almost totally dependent on social networks. Like i said before, the term 'nervous system of society' could not be more correct, without a nervous system a functioning body (society) would feel no pain and perhaps, due to its current dependance, become isolated.

As technology continues to evolve, humanity will want the next best thing, we as a race are constantly looking of for the fastest state of the art hunk of technology which at the moment are mobile phones and tablets. just to give an example of how isolated interactive networking used to be, think back around 30 years, computers where just becoming small enough to fit into a home, although expensive, everybody wanted one, black screens with greet letters, they where state of the art. 20 years ago, computers where slowly becoming affordable for a moderate income family to afford, and screens where now in colour, yet pixelated. 10 years ago, the internet was booming, everybody needed a computer in the house, emailing was the new thing amongst offices and distant family members. And it was around this time where most people had mobile phones, some with colour screens and only a matter of time before the internet was wireless and portable.

A few years later, phone's, laptops and PC's where all occupied by users on early social sites like 'Piczo' and 'bebo' and Facebook as in development. Posting pictures and comments seemed to be crucial amongst friends and family. And now in this new decade, we've seen the rise of tablet computers, smaller more portable than any computer successfully launched into the market, i believe we are just at the beginning, i believe that humans are forgetting their native instincts of communication, even old traits that where once popular such as writing letters or even a more modern approach such as phone calls are being over run by current methods. Theres nothing wrong with getting up, walking down the street to knock a door, it might not be that we are to lazy to do so, its just a quick text, or Facebook message is more convenient, and its something we don't even need to think about any more. The nervous system of society is ever expanding indeed.



'nervous system of society' - the network societies and other classifications (chap 2)

'So, networks organise relations within and between levels or units of social reality' (P28. the network societies and other classifications (chap 2)

http://www.foliomag.com/2011/report-98-percent-u-s-online-population-uses-social-networks

'The Medium is the Message'

‘The Medium is the Message', a notion suggested by Herbert Marshall McLuhan of the Toronto School of communication theory. Marshall McLuhan’s notion suggested simply that the medium is more important than the content. 


When we think of media, we naturally think of its content, contents of a newspaper, a program on the television on a poster on the wall. McLuhan believed that the medium itself should be the focus of the study rather than the content carried.  A simple and clear example, where a light bulb does not carry any content in a way that a newspaper has articles or a television or radio has programs.  A light bulb as a medium, has a social effect and it enables people to create spaces in darkness which otherwise would not be there.  Marshall McLuhan describes a light bulb as a ‘medium without any content’, and that it creates an environment by its mere presence. (http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/mcluhan.htm)


McLuhan's lightbulb theory began to erupt in a series of publications arguing weather or not the Medium is in fact the message and people and researchers began arguing for and against the notion dramatically. Media could in some ways be seen as amplifiers, all the technological advances created by humans are extensions of the body and senses.  In a sense that medium could be seen as an amplification of our self’s. A technological extension of the human body and what we seek isn't intact the medium, but only what is carried. Say a television, we watch the television because it entertains us, we are interested in what we are watching, but Mcluhan wasn't interested in what was being published, he was interested in what was beyond that. In a way, we could refer the human race as ‘Cyborgs’, half biological organism, and half machine, a hybrid organism.  Binoculars are indeed an extension of the human eye, enabling us the see over vast distances without having to move an inch, a camera could be an extension of the eye AND mind, enabling us to see through a lens, and capture a still image of what can be seen, ‘in short, we are cyborgs.’ (Haraway, 1991: 150).

McLuhan believed that media created by us, is what creates us that we shape the content that inspires or makes us who we are. Over the years, each new generation has become more ‘technologically intelligent’ due to being born into an environment filled with the new advances in technology. To use phones or IPods of the newer generation, the individual must be technologically intelligent, if he/she was born around the area of portable digital devices. In theory, that individual would adapt to the device in almost no time and perhaps without the need of a manual. Where as an individual born sometime beforehand would have to learn how to adapt to almost any technological advances in the upcoming years, in other words, they learn how to do one thing, then they must learn how to do the next. 

In short, from what we have seen already, this must mean that any analysis of media content is meaningless?

(in short, we are cyborgs.’ (Haraway, 1991: 150).)
(http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/mcluhan.htm )

'Moral panic'

During a seminar in our second semester at bangor university, we where asked a series of questions in relation to Moral panic. The concept of moral panic is always criticised amongst the media studies communities. For example, many question the very definition of the term, which is the centre debate of the term.

Firstly, I will give my opinion of what i believe to be the correct definition for the term and then an arguable example the back the definition. The idea of moral panic characteristics revolve around 'concern, hostility, consensus and volatility' and it is these criteria's that i believe to be the foundation of the term. Moral panic can be a small isolated issue and erupt into a national, or even a global issue or concern. Such examples of moral panic on a global scale might be global warming and pollution. Global warming is considered a moral panic due to the pact that scientists are warning of impending floods and severe weather warnings bought on by the global warming theory, and they back the situation with the current climate events as proof, and arguments against the theories are that the planet is simply going through a natural warming cycle just how it always has done through out its existence. public response to this is brand new electric wind turbines, hybrid cars and solar panels being built and bought across the globe. some might suggest this is a marketing scheme to encourage the world to buy these life saving inventions for our future generations.

'A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now... There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools...It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings' (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)

Humans are always cautious of they're surrounding environment, that is a natural instinct, so whenever there is a warning of impending doom of any shape or form, we will react in moral panic, its just how we work. The media can take advantage from this and sell, sell, sell!! The public will naturally listen to their superiors and ignore the sceptics, irrelevant who has the most conclusive amount of proof. we are always on the lookout for the next most interesting piece of information that might have an effect on our lives or others.

Global warming - http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm