COM22: Ass 1

Assignment 1 is made up of a variety of required posts to the discussion board and collated.




Week Date Posted Response to the Weekly Question
1 7/03/12 1:41 AM I see convergence as being a crucial issue in distinguishing new media from old media. There are now more mobile phones in Australia than people (Budde, 2011) and the number of electronic web-centric devices is growing. We now live in a society where we use a phone to take photos, we get email from our TV’s and we can order food online from our refrigerators. Whilst miniaturisation has made this possible, it is society that demands it (Fiske, 2010, p.116) as we want more access to everything immediately. This convergence is making information so readily available on different devices that it’s creating a life of its own. Featherstone et al (2009) state it clearly when they say:

“Not only is information alive, but information-saturated cultures are also seen as alive, …and we see the emergence of a new set of metaphors for social and cultural life.”




Budde, P 2011, Australia – Mobile Communications – Subscriber Statistics. Accessed 1 March 2012 from


Featherstone, M, Kittler, F, Stiegler, B, Hayles, NK, Abe, K, Allison, A, Steinberg, M, Condry, I, Kim, H & Pettman, D 2009, ‘Special Issue on Ubiquitous Media’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 26, pp. 1-22.


Fiske, J 2010, Understanding popular culture, Taylor & Francis.




Week Date Posted Response to the Weekly Question by MR
2 Thursday, 8 March 2012 7:50:29 PM



The term ‘Digital Divide’ was first used in 1996 by Simon Moores to define the socio-economic problem (Peña, 2008).  Livingstone (2005) describes the issue of ‘Digital Divide’ to still be evident today, albeit 16 years after Simon Moores highlighted the issue of a ‘Digital Divide’.


The digital divide is not a clear single gap that divides a society into two groups, but highlights the fact that based on your geographical location you may be unable to access the internet, which will cause the greatest impact on the education of the children of tomorrow.


Children will eventually need computers and internet in order to complete homework or be able to have the same advantages as the rest of the world. Financial and cultural issues played the biggest factors, which contributed to the huge gap in the digital divide (Peña, 2008) and as Livingstone (2005) emphasises that the world must be fair for all, I still believe that until the communities and governments accept and embrace the new technology the unfairness will unfortunately continue. And the children of the affected communities will be unfairly behind in regards to their education compared to the countries which emprise the internet and technology.



Peña, I. (2008). Digital Divide. Unpeeling the layers of the digital divide: category thresholds and relationships within composite indices. 1 (1), 1 – 32.


Livingstone, S (2005). ‘Critical debates in internet studies: reflections on an emerging field’, in Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (eds) Mass Media and Society, 4th ed. London: Hodder Arnold, Chapter 1, pp. 9-28.




Week Date Posted Response to M from K
2 8 March 2012 8:54:34 PM



Hi M****,
I agree that due to geographical locations, people and children of this generation may not have access to the internet, but I think that this is more a gap between developed and under developed countries.
Livingstone (2005) says that “The ´digital divide’ is conceived on all levels from the global, where it is primarily an economic phenomenon that distinguishes developed from developing countries, to the national level, where factors of geography, socio-economic status and ethnicity prove crucial, and the domestic level, where gender and generation stratify contexts of access and use.”
I agree that the ´digital divide’ is an economic phenomenon that distinguishes developed from developing countries but I don’t agree that it´s such a socio-economic issue within the developed world.
Most people living in the developed world irrelevant of demographics do and will have internet access whether it is at home or through the school system. As technology advances, schools are implementing it accordingly and even though it may not be 100% equal, majority of people in the developed world will have access and the opportunity to learn through this medium.

Livingstone, S (2005). ‘Critical debates in internet studies: reflections on an emerging field’, in Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (eds) Mass Media and Society, 4th ed. London: Hodder Arnold, Chapter 1, p 13.




Week Date Posted Response to M and K from Me
2 9 March 2012 12:11:56 AM



[Post subject changed to Is the definition still totally applicable?]


Hi Guys,


I think that Livingstone’s (2005) definition of the “Digital Divide” is outdated and needs to be more inclusive. Edutopia (2012) claim that while it is a still critical issue, it has developed new complex characteristics. And I feel this is a more accurate way of looking at the digital divide. Hertz (2011) explains that the digital divide definition of ten years ago is no longer applicable. She writes:

“If you ask most people to define the digital divide, most of them would answer that it has to do with those who have access to technology and those who don’t. Ten years ago, they would have been right. However, over the last ten years access to technology has become more and more ubiquitous. …The divide has shifted from an access issue to a kind of access divide.” [emphasis hers]


Her article talks about how while the internet is far more readily available now than a decade ago, the way we access has created new digital divides. She lists mobile devices as an example – those without smart phones now struggle with the digital divide over those who already use them. However, she also notes that while there have been minor changes to address the needs of disabled, blind and deaf internet users, this is one area where the original definition still seems to work.


Edutopia 2012, The Digital Divide: Resource Roundup, What works in Education: The George Lucas Educational Foundation, viewed 8 March 2012,

Hertz, MB 2011, A New Understanding of the Digital Divide, 8 March 2012, Blog,

Livingstone, S 2005, ‘Critical debates in internet studies: reflections on an emerging field’, in Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (eds), Mass media and society, 4th ed., Hodder Arnold, London, pp. 9-28.




Week Date Posted Response to the Weekly Question
3 12 March 2012 1:22:14 PM Hey Adam, hope this gives you a giggle 🙂
Week 3 tasks (2012a) asks us to answer the questions below, however immediately below this are a range of statements/instructions, and are not questions. However, despite the poor English of the Unit Guide (2012a), I have endeavoured to follow the directives given, as listed below.
Directive Words:

Argue: To present the case for and/or against a particular proposition.
Justify: To give evidence which supports an argument or idea; show why decisions or conclusions were made, considering objections that others might make.
Why, Definition and How:

By nature, I am an argumentative person, according to my sibling (Withey, 2012) and I feel this gives me an opportunity to justify and explain my viewpoint on a subject. To argue a point means that I will be able to present one side, making better use of my word limit than if I was to ‘evaluate’ or ‘critique’ it (2012a). The ability to justify gives the opportunity to address SOME of the objections listed and also gives me the chance to outweigh them with my dazzling logic (Medland, 2012). The combination of argue and justify lends additional scope to the subject matter, making it more suitable for an essay.
Initial thoughts on Essay Question:

After reading the set texts on unpacking the assignment (2012c), I feel it is important to prune down my ideas into concepts of specificity. The Marking Criteria for the final assessment (2012b) gives analysis marks to

  • Choice of Topic,
  • Clear Question,
  • External Research,
  • Relevance of Research,
  • Integration of Quotes,
  • Development of Argument,
  • Course issues and Concepts.


It is obvious from this the list that the most important things to be focusing is the research, regardless of what the question actually is. This is evident because of the criteria listed; the majority are specifically related to our research ability with only two criteria directly related to our question. There are a total of 13 requirements to fulfil the assignment and even if each is only given a total of 5 marks, this means the total is 70 points. This only allows an additional 30 points to be distributed elsewhere within the criteria so even if these points were given to the actual question argument, the points allocated for research is still equitable enough to suggest the focus should, without a doubt, be on references.
In light of this, my question will be as follows:
Justify and argue for an equitable solution to minimise piracy, addressing specific issues such as copyright and digital distance.
I should find ample external sources relating to these topics. (Google, 2012)


Griffith (2012a) COM22 Unit Outline: Week 3 Discussion Topics, Griffith University, Available at: [Accessed: 12th March 2012].

Griffith (2012b) COM22 Unit Outline: Marking Criteria Assessment 3, Griffith Library,  Available at: [Accessed: 12th March 2012].

Griffith (2012c) Information Sheet: Unpacking the Assignment. Griffith Library,  Available at: [Accessed: 12th March 2012].

Medland, Ian (2012), husband. Personal Communication.

Google (2012) Scholar, Google, Available at [Accessed: 12 March 2012].

Withey, Brent. Brother. Personal Communication.






Week Date Posted Response to the Weekly Question
4 23 March 2012 6:29:17 PM When considering the impact of convergence on today’s society, I am instantly drawn to the ethics issue. Convergence has allowed for such a huge sense of ‘immediacy’ where information can be gathered at a moment’s notice (Mudhai, 2011). And this has dramatically impacted on our society and how we conduct ourselves (Meyrowitz, 1985). But the speed with which society has embraced convergence, particularly mobile media, is fast outpacing our ability to cope with the ramifications of its use.

The Australian Government is aware of this and has been retroactively publishing social media policies (, 2010) in an attempt to put a lid on behaviour and conduct of their employees. But the Australian Government is certainly not the first government to be pushing for regulation or containment of the internet (Grubb, 2010). The mobile phenomenon has directly altered the way society creates, shares, stores, utilises and divulges information (Kim, 2010). Whilst Bertot (2010) believes we can use this information exchange as a means for governments to become more transparent and open, the reality is that Governments do NOT like their dirty laundry exposed. This has resulted in some unusual behaviour by Governments such as police monitoring neighbourhoods looking for unsecured wifi services (Calligeros, 2012).

It also means that as a society we are unsure how to proceed with brand new technologies like mobile wallets (Google, n.d.; Paypal, 2012). It is the ethics of social media that is at the heart of the conundrum surrounding new media (Regenberg, 2010).


Bertot, JC, Jaeger, PT & Grimes, JM 2010, ‘Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies’, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 264-71.

Calligeros, M 2012, Police to cruise streets for unsecured Wi-Fi, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 23 March, 2012, [].

Google n.d., Google Wallet, google, viewed 23 March, 2012, [].

Grubb, B 2010, Govt Agencies move on Social Media Policy, April 16, 2010, Weblog, [].

Kim, S, Na, EK & Ryu, MH 2010, ‘Convergence between mobile and UCC media: The potential of mobile video UCC service’, Communications, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 26-35.

Meyrowitz, J 1985, No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior, Oxford University Press New York.

Micó, J, Masip, P & Barbosa, S 2011, ‘Models of business convergence in the information industry: A mapping of cases in Brazil and Spain’, Brazilian journalism research, vol. 5, no. 1.

Mudhai, OF 2011, ‘Immediacy and openness in a digital Africa: Networked-convergent journalisms in Kenya’, Journalism, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 674-91. 2010, Social Media Policy, National Library of Australia, viewed 22 March 2012, [].




Week Date Posted Response to the Weekly Question
5 30 March 2012 7:14:08 PM Part A: I felt that the key message in Bell’s (2007a) chapter was how much cyberculture is mutating, shifting and transubstantiating. While we live in a world and are experiencing the growth and expansion of cyberculture into our lives, it is often easy to become immune to seeing the ways things are actually changing. Bell (2007) called it a “still-morphing field” and I think this is superb description of our current relationship with the study of cyberculture.

Part B:

I disagree that those on the ‘wrong side of the digital divide’ are being invisiblised. Instead, I argue that the ‘wrong side’ is becoming smaller and smaller for those seeking a connection to the Internet but that like cyberculture, the ‘digital divide’ is constantly morphing and changing. Where once we felt it was only a connection to the superhighway that separated the ‘haves and the have-nots’, we now realise that the digital divide can be experienced in a variety of ways, from internet connection speed to lack of a smart phone. (Lister et al, 2009).



Bell, D 2007, “Why Cyberculture”, in Cyberculture Theorists: Manuel Castells and Donna Haraway, Routledge, New York, pp. 14.


Bell, D 2007a, “Why Cyberculture”, in Cyberculture Theorists: Manuel Castells and Donna Haraway, Routledge, New York, pp. 1-14.


Lister, M, Dovey, J, Giddings, S, Grant, I & Kelly, K 2009, New Media: A critical introduction, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York.





Week Date Posted Response to the Weekly Question
6 30 March 2012 9:07:38 PM As a social media mentor, it is my job to teach people how to be engaging on social networks. While there are a number of ways to do this, I think the two main keys to being engaging is to make conversation and to evolve with the technology. In my YouTube video on Facebook engagement, I explain further about how these two can really polarise your audience into action because it is essential to not treat social media like a traditional marketing tool (geekGOBIN, 2011). Using a video in itself to teach these concepts is one of the ways to be more creative and enjoyable, thus improving engagement. Burgess & Banks (2010) agree, saying that it is this personalisation that demonstrates “the newly visible blurring of the boundaries between everyday communication, creativity and audience participation“


Burgess J & Banks J (2010) ‘User-created content and online social networks’ in Cunningham S & Turner G (eds.), The Media & Communications in Australia, 3rd edn., Ch.18, pp.299, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest. 2011, December’s Top 5 Facebook Tips for Local Business Owners, YouTube Video, Accessed 30 March 2012. []


Results: 85/100 HD



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s