Hacker/Geek Culture

Hacker/Geek culture has become a concern in modern societies due to the rise of digital technologies.  The American computer professional, former employee of the CIA and former contractor for the National Security Agency revealed  documents on the 9th June 2013 that the NSA where tapping into every  internet browsers and spying on the public. However the argument is whether he was covering up for his own actions whilst working at the NSA or whether he was a hero. According to Forbes(2013) it is  in fact  that he wanted to “open the eyes of Americans to the fact that our government is abusing its power”. According to Forbes (2013) Snowden got criminal charge, for theft of government documents and for communicating with the national defense information.  This therefore highlights that “Snowden was arguably acting on behalf of unknowing victims” (Forbes,2013). He wanted to reveal what he saw as wrong even if that would jeopardize his career.

This is a clip of Edward Snowden expressing his reasons for his actions and why he does not want to live in a society like this.

Forbes (2013) states that he wanted to become a historical distinction and make history by revealing such secrets, he knew that it would become a controversy and he knew that the public would always remember him in history if they knew the truth behind the governments actions. It can also be argued that because he was a computer technologist  from a young age, this motivated his actions and made him want to liberate the public from hacking and freeing information from massive US institutions. This reveals to me that societies are become more dependent on  digital technologies because they are now realising that  democracy has led us to  liberation and has allowed us to argue against  unethical political decision. They therefore know that in some cases they will not be able to gather evidence on all private information so they rely on  digital technology to  allow them to do so. Those have argued that Snowden followed the footstep Julian Assange, who was a whistleblowing chief of WikiLeaks.

This youtube clip is a live news broadcast of Julian Assange empathising with Edward Snowden. Assange believes that Snowden is raising awareness to a “sensitive” subject.

According to Wikipedia (2012) Julian Assange’s actions derived from an early understanding of web culture, he believed in the freedom of information and stressed that human  rights shouldn’t be avoided. His main aim was to create an encyclopedia for the public where they will be able to access documents and data.  According to The Guardian (2013) Assange believes that we should support Edward Snowden for being so loyal to the Geek culture, he believes that  Obama is a traitor for  “betraying a generation of “young technical minded people”. In The Guardian (2013) he states that “ The charging of Edward Snowden is intended to intimidate any country that might be considering standing up for his rights”. However it can be argued that Obama done this to protect the government and that he had no choice but to keep the US government in shape. I believe that he wanted to warn people of the consequences of intervening with governmental documents and that there is reason why we have different positions in life because those that are protecting the country are doing it well. However what we see here is that there is no balance between security and privacy.

 

References:

The Guardian (2013) Support NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, says Julian Assange Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-julian-assange Last Accessed: Wednesday 16th April 2014

Forbes (2013) Inside The Mind of Edward Snowden. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/06/23/inside-the-mind-of-edward-snowden/  Last Accessed: Wednesday 16th April 2014

Wikipedia(2012) Julian Assange, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange Last Accessed: Wednesday 16th April 2014

 

 

 

Cyberwarfare

Cyberwarfare is the use of digital technologies to conduct politically motivated hacking.  Clarke ( 2012) states that cyberwarfare is not something that should be promoted and neither is it something that should act as a type of weaponry that should be hidden from the public. Clarke (2012) follows that it is not the public who will suffer from cyber warfare it is in fact those who are apart of privately owned corporations who will have to deal with the consequences of this.

 

Case Study: According to Wikipedia(2007) on the 27th April 2007 Cyberattacks were  conducted by Russia  on   Estonia . Estonian organizations websites where hacked into  such as the Estonian press, banks and the government because of Russia  disagreement with  the Estonians in regards to   the relocation of the Bronze Solider of Tallinn  who was a  Soviet  grave maker .   According to Wikipedia   (2007)   those attacks that impacted on the public were denied, these attacks ranged  from denial of service attacks such  as  Ping floods whereby    the attacker will overwhelm the victim with “ICMP echo request  packets”.    The  Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) which is used by network devices to send error messages.  This is  seen as the most effective way of ping allowing attackers to send fast ICMP  packets without waiting for  a response.  There was a number of cyber attacks including spamming news portals  and the damaging of the Estonian Reform Party .

 

This is a news broadcast discussing Russia’s recent attempts to use cyberwarfare on the Ukraine government

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwAhBzj-0Wo

How does this impact on my understanding of Digital Culture ?

This type of political    rivalry has an impact on my understanding of digital cultures  as it  highlights that digital activity  can be seen as a more disruptive way of dealing with political unrest. It has been argued that “Far from being an alternative to conventional warfare,  cyber war  may   actually increase the likelihood of more traditional combat with explosives, bullets, and missiles”  (Clarke & Knake, 2012:28).  Due to the advent of digital technologies in modern societies we are seen as the most vulnerable as there are more   ways of being attacked. It has been noted that “botnets started targeting Internet addresses most people would not know…the addresses of servers running parts of the telephone network, the credit -card verification system  and Internet directory” (Clarke &  Knake, 2012:32) . In effect this type of  rivalry can spiral out of control as political bodies cannot control  what is going on unless they know where and how this is being conducted in order to come up with a scenario. However it is not direct rivalry therefore there is a better chance of working  with each other   without being caught out. During the London cyberconferene (2011) David Cameron states that “Everyday we see attempts on an industrial scale to steal governments secrets – information of interests to nation state, not just commercial “  in a sense he is highlighting that it is not just  information online that they are trying to tap into it is  documents about government secrets..This shows  that it is not because of the rise of digital devices and it is not whether  digital technologies have made this worse or not it is that  the notion of being revealed to government secrets has always been a thought . However it can be argued that power has always lied within cyberspace, this cannot be controlled because  things in society will become more advanced and devices will always act as a defence mechanism

References:

Clarke. A, R & Knake, R (2012) Cyberwarfare : The Next Threat to National Security and  What to do about it

London Conference on Cyberspace (2011)  securing the future of the internet, Available at: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240106470/London-Conference-on-Cyberspace-securing-the-future-of-the-internet Last Accessed: Wednesday 16th April

2007 cyberattacks on Estonia (2007)   Available at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia

Last Accessed: Wednesday 16th April

 

News games

Gaming has become more and more integrated  with  the practices of journalism.  The rise of  news games  has impacted on how journalist  interpret their work,  it has helped to provide new content,  insight by helping us to adapt to existing  journalism practices and allows us to explore new innovative ways of expressing current affairs. The  reporting of games whilst playing it has become a popular way for users to engage with each other, games such as  Minecraft and Call of  Duty have incorporated live commentaries of the game itself  which reflects on the practices of Broadcast journalism. The rise of infographics has benefited journalistic work by helping to put stories into perspective and create a mental picture of  the issue discussed. Bogost, Ferrari and Scheweizer (2003) state that during the twentieth century  larger newspapers were informing readers visually by  using graphs  to  present   informative data in order to help them draw connections and show a greater understanding of complex events .  The advent of infographics in technological forms has changed  the perception of authorship  and has allowed  users to gain a  understanding of complex data. The development of digital infographics have allowed  news to become more  interactive and have made them more game-like.

In news games  “Players can explore information to find surprising new revelations, engage with processes that depict how information arises and interacts , reconfigure information to replay possible scenarios , or experiment with information” (Bogost, Ferrari, Scheweizer. 2003:7).  Bogost (2003) highlights that current event games explore stories that are not understood worldwide but are covered in  accessible ways.

 Moreover  Documentary games are more detailed accounts of news and help  to create  a mental picture by offering a experience of newsworthy events.With past events, documentary games  “recreate times, spaces   , and systems that  one can otherwise  only understand  archival film footage or imagination” (Bogost, Ferrari, Scheweizer. 2003:7)  in a sense he is expressing that documentary games recreate the setting and  progression of events and incorporate it within games so that users can interact with  it more,stimulating their minds  by making them  work towards political and social logics  in situations they have not yet encountered.

As the technology of which news is disseminated changes, the practices of journalism alters. News games have given journalists opportunities of what content to distribute this then shows that if their is a increase in technological shifts, the future  of journalism will expand and there will be  less competition  with stories as  new news angles will be developed everyday. In addition to news game ideas, I would design a game where contestants would have to answer news related quiz questions about  international and national current affairs under time constraints. Groups will only have three lives and will answer visual question by using puzzles like images to make sense of what news this is and verbal question some of which will be correct information however they will have to spot out any incorrect information on particular news before submitting their final answer. Groups will range from 2-3.

Referencing:

Bogost, I., Ferrari, S.Schweizer, B (2003) News Games: Journalism at play. The MIT Press

Gamification

Gaming has become a popular concept within our culture, the way in which we theorize games is by looking at gaming from a long-term historical perspective. McLuhan (1994:8) states that “characteristics of all media, means that the content of any medium is always another medium” in this case he is highlighting that gaming have become representations  of aspects within modern life which is conceived to us through the media. Gamification refers to the process of using human thinking in a non-gaming concept in order to help users engage with the game more by learning problem solving skills. McLuhan (1994) highlight that games have offered immediate participation into society, in sense he is highlight how the ludification of society has become popular content in modern games. Games have allowed us to step out of our comfort zone and has helped to stimulate humanity by giving us the opportunity to question and explore how society works. McLuhan states that gaming has allowed users to participate with no speciality in the reality of the game. This gives us the opportunity to create meaning and interpret our own daily lives. However McLuhan (1964) highlights that in some countries, gamification seems to be removing the boundaries between awareness because of the rise of digital technologies and the increasing ability to participate. McLuhan (1994:263) states that “A game is a machine that can get into action only if the players consent to become puppets for a time” however it can be argued to create an unrealistic perception of the real  world because in gaming you can physically control people whereas in a democratic society you can vote and fight for your say for example game designs don’t take into consideration that it is not logical to conceive a western man adjusting to society and willing to surrender to specific demands. This therefore highlights that gamification does not always show a realistic representation of modern life.However McLuhan(1994:263) believes that this would not happen because “When the social rules change suddenly, then previously accepted social manners and rituals may suddenly assume the stark outlines and the arbitrary patterns of a game”. McLuhan uses the example of The Gamesmanship of Stephan Potter, who incorporates Britain’s social revolution into his game. He highlights that he represented this by showing how they were gradually moving to social equality, the older issues of acceptance of class divisions were now presented as comical gimmicks. I believe that the gamification of the Ukraine crisis will help to inform the government as to what different strategies they can try out to improve their economic catastrophe. It will help them to test strategies before fulfilling them and will prevent any more risks.

 Case Study: 

Yukaichou (2013) states that “By 2009, AIDS has already killed 30 Million people, or close to the equivalent of the State of California. As of 2010, there are still 34 Million people that have contracted HIV. It was for 15 years, many of the top PhD Scientists in the world were trying to decipher a crystal structure for one of the AIDS-causing viruses called the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV), but could not solve it.” 

The University of Washington’s Centre for game science worked with the Biochemistry department to create a online video game puzzle on protein folding. People can participate worldwide with different protein structures.

 

References:

Marshall McLuhan (1994) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, MIT Press edition

Yukaichou: Top 10 Social Gamification Examples that will literally save the world Available at: http://www.yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/top-10-gamification-examples-human-race/#.U1OUJehX-uY Last Accessed: April 20th 2014

Hypertext & Literature

I want to focus on the claims made for hypertext and the ways in which digital technologies have supported the different modes of literary expression. Many people have argued that digital technologies have always taken a toll in literacy.  Wardrip-Fruin & Montfort (2003) state that hypertext has helped to support literary content as it has allowed people to use technology to create electronic documents whereby users can engage with information without being constrained from it. They then highlight that previously, books where only used by those who were wealthy therefore there has been a hierarchical arrangements of discourse. Wardrip-Fruin & Montfort (2003:48) argue that “all distributed computing systems are hypertextual, since they deliver information dynamically in response to users’ demands” in other words they are expressing that computers act as a search engine responding to user commands through text.

It can be argued that  technologies have not always supported literature this is not necessarily because of the technologies themselves but the fact that  there is a huge misunderstanding of technological history . If  Wardrip-Fruin & Monfront (2003) highlight that people tend to expect a technological revolution in relation to how we engage with information  however if contemporary technology was shaped around whether it was beneficial  previously then maybe we could create a revolution or a shift of  how old  information was ordered. Hayles (2002) argues that we need to develop textual theory that enables us to understand the materiality of   new media. Perhaps this is the reason why users suffer from disappointment  because they do not understand what they are asking for. Hayles (2002:62) states that this is the reason why “ we have little hope of forging a robust  nuanced account of how literature is changing under the impact of information technology “.

Moreover Wardrip- Fruin & Montfront (2003)  highlight that hypertext is perhaps just another “movement”   in other words they are suggesting that  hence the name movement, hypertext  moves in a certain direction then stops.  Although hypertext has   helped to enrich  consumption of information, it can potentially  threaten the ownership of information causing political ramifications. This puts hypertext into a different perspective whereby we might indeed refer to it as a revolution  this is because it has separated  people from repression and has allowed us to  have equal rights over information access. Furthermore in regards to hypertext being defined as a movement,  hypertextual discourse can be modified  if readers and writers of content  put together new links within  text. This could potentially expand if there is  a collectivity of different links. Wardrip-Fruin & Montfront (2003)  highlight Nelson’s idea by expressing his aim to unite  everyone and create a textual universe. He highlights that the Xanadu will act as a system  that will be the central distribution network for all written content. Wardrip-Fruin & Montfront (2003:695) state that  “Xanadu would protect the intellectual   property through copyright . Users would  pay per byte accessed  and  receive  royalties   when others obtained  proprietary material they had published  in the system”   in other  words content will be managed effectively so that  hypertext  will be beneficial  for everyone.

References:

Hayles, Karen (2002) Writing Machines, MIT Press

Wardrip-Fruin, N and Montfort, N. The New Media Reader (2003) London : MIT

 

Technological Singularity

A massively discussed subject within digital culture is the debate that computers are taking over human intelligence. Wardrip-Fruin & Montfort (2003:604) state that “the attribution of purpose to computer- artefacts derives from the simple fact that each action by the user effects an immediate machine reaction”. This then highlights the idea of Artificial Intelligence as it question whether computers are creating intelligent agents through its ability to allow us to make decisions on our own. The body is a part of computer science; we all use our bodies to create artificial intelligence. However the argument is whether we can even create our own artificial intelligence. Could it be argued that in order for us to be intelligent we must know the content of a machine? We see the artificial intelligence between a man and a machine through the establishment of robots. People have designed expressive robots, visual robots, and care robots. The BBC (2013) shows how China has been using care robots to care for the elderly due to their growing elderly population. Does this then mean computers are beneficial when it involves man and machinery. Computers are allowing us to create characters online and predict their life outcomes for example Conway’s Game of Life. Ray Kurtzweil created an idea that predicts technological singularity. According to Big Think (2013) “singularity will be achieved at the time when the exponential growth of the power of computers and technology hits such a speed that it fundamentally changes the world and humans’ role in it”.  However it can be argued that he is predicting enormously fundamental shifts for the future of computers.  It can be argued that computers have already changed human life, the more and more technology develops the more humans engage with technology. Moreover it can be argued that this idea came from Kurtzeil’s fear of death (Big Think,2013). How will we know if human thinking possesses advantages over computer minds? How do we know if computers stimulate the human brain? Perhaps it can be argued that we have to think about whom we are and what we are before exploring the relationship between computers and humans. Technology does not always mean good.

This is a Youtube clip of Ray Kurzweil explaining his idea:

References:

Big Think (2013) The Singularity Of Ray Kurzweil, Available at: http://bigthink.com/100-biggest-ideas/the-singularity-of-ray-kurzweil Last Accessed: 5^th April 2014

The BBC (2013) ‘A robot is my friend’: Can machines care for elderly? Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24949081 Last Accessed: 5^th April 2014

Wardrip-Fruin, N and Montfort, N. The New Media Reader (2003) London : MIT

Surveillance & Privacy

Over the years governments have struggled to balance the need for privacy and security in a societies dominated by information. The association of surveillance has become more and more closely associated with the world of digital technologies. The advent of digital media has allowed people to have their say through the establishment of online communities. This then lead to change in the journalism industry whereby practices changed due to the new ways of distributing news.  Leaning (2004) highlights that just because something is digital doesn’t necessarily mean that we will benefit from it. Governments are put at risk due to the ability for the public to put forth their views on political debates leading to a growing liberation of information. Furthermore privacy in a democratic society can lead to the public becoming more and more reluctant to spread ideas, if their privacy is being invaded to protect governments and control society through surveillance.

Wardrip-Fruin & Monfront (2003:743) highlight the main five components within the surveillance model, these are the use of visual metaphors, the assumption that the idea of someone “watching” you is non-disruptive, emphasising their use of manipulation.  Territorial metaphors which involves the “invasion” of “private” personal space and the opposition of consent and a bureaucracy  with a specific set of identification of the start so that governments are able to plan out malevolent ways of benefiting political nature. Wardrip-Fruin & Monfront (2003:743) state that “the surveillance model is a cultural phenomenon”. In a sense they are highlighting that this idea of surveillance is not a modern idea but that it is a historical experience rooted from secret police units and the creation of listening devices.

Wardrip-Fruin & Monfront (2003) state that the surveillance model is a case of using metaphors to dominate the public. They highlight that the surveillance model is commonly observed through the literature of privacy. They believe that there are ways of balancing the need for security and privacy for instance drawing on alternative ways of demonstrating this model so that equally important elements are in the foreground. Wardrip-Fruin & Monfront (2003) highlight a alternative metaphor system which changes the idea of surveillance and expresses the need to “capture” some things.  It moves away from the idea that surveillance will yet lead to violent connotations but highlights the “ability to fully, accurately, or “cleanly” express particular semantic notions or distinctions without reference to the actual taking-in of data”. It also highlights the act of acquiring data as input whether it is from a human or from a electronic device. The term “capture” creates a sense of ambiguity through the way in which we acquire the data and use it to model the reality that it reflects which is what we need to highlight instead of creating a challenge between privacy and surveillance. Wardrip-Fruin & Monfront (2003:744) states that “the surveillance model originates in the classical political sphere of state action, whereas the capture model has deep roots into the practical application of computer systems”.

Edward Snowdon stresses that he won’t allow the US government to destroy privacy, in relation to the NSA case on surveillance.According to Info please (2013) “in early June the British newspaper The Guardian revealed the top-secret surveillance activities taken on by the National Security Agency”. Reports leaked on Washington’s posts that the NSA were secretly collecting information from the US citizens without their consent and gathering data about the phone calls they have made, internet usage and information on email activity. Mr Snowdon who is an employee at the Central Intelligence Agency admitted to being the reason why this information leaked however the debate still raises whether he was a hero or a traitor to the US government.

 

References:

Wardrip-Fruin, N and Montfort, N. The New Media Reader  (2003) London : MIT

Info Please (2013) The NSA, Edward Snowden, and Surveillance Available at: http://www.infoplease.com/news/2013/edward-snowden-leaks.html Last Accessed: April 5^th 2014

 

 

 

 

 

Crowd-funding: Pros & Cons

Crowd funding is a way for non-profit campaigns to get help with finances in order to sustain a crowd of people who will support their  campaign. However there are a number of constraints that stop this working effectively. For instance trying to raise the money back that was funded to your campaign is difficult especially if their is a lack of effort and time put into doing this. Also there is a large amount of content that is needed to succeed in order to enhance your campaign, however people fail to contact founders of campaigns that have started from Kickstarter and have grown immensely. I believe that people will grow if they had valuable insight into crowd funding mechanisms. In some cases people have committed fraud by asking for the funding however not putting in the amount of work needed to raise the money back.

 

Also people have stolen the ideas of other crowd funders from images to videos. Zioneyez designed a pair of glasses with a built in mic, camera and internet browser, however this idea was too ambitious and they were unable to succeed in developing the idea further. This therefore lead to the backers not gaining no money and reimbursed funds being given back to funders. The Kobe red campaign showed how successful crowd funding can be, in order to show that they were a legitimate campaign they invested in private investigators to monitor their project. According to crowd mapped (2010) there was no sign of them scamming however they didn’t want to risk it for the safety of others. Kickstarter shut it down a hour before the fundraising began but backers did not lose out on any investments they made and they raised more money than their estimated funding goal. If I was going to use Kickstarter to promote my journalism career, I would investigate an international story largely discussed in the news and I would  do extensive research in order to benefit my project. I will research how widely discussed the story is beforehand as this will help determine how many people will pledge money to help the issue.

Crowd mapped: Crowdfunding Successes & Failures Infographic, Available at: http://www.crowdmapped.com/crowdfunding-successes-failures-infographic/ Last Accessed: April 13th 2014

Intellectual Property

There has been a great struggle within the age of  technology revolved around the construction of property. The competing ideologies of capitalism and socialism in the early 20th century created conflicting views on property and ideology.

 

This is a clip of Stephan Kinsella who is a Intellectual Property lawyer and author discussing his views against the idea and why it prevents capitalism:

 

According to Bolter (2001:11)  there has always been a “great and rather silent struggle over the construction of property in an age of electronic media”. The UK Intellectual Property Office Website (2013) states that “ Intellectual property is when an idea takes some tangible form”. IP can mean a brand, invention, design or other kind of creation can be legally owned”. Intellectual property rights gives awards of a patent to the designer of an  original invention, without a authors copyright we cannot develop in a knowledge based economy. Wardrip- Fruin & Montfort(2003:636) highlight that the primary role of copyright is “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Wardrip-Fruin & Montfort (2003:637) state that “Copyright had the purpose of providing economic incentive to bring new ideas to the marketplace” in a sense they are expressing that copyright was designed to protect the economic structure of societies marketplace, if copyright wasn’t put in place they would be no economic value for products and new designs. However they highlight that its not a case of just protecting the rights of inventions so investments are given elsewhere instead it is the case that objects can be patented if they are original enough or protected by trade secret acts. I done some research on some of the  reason why wikipedia has become so commonly used although the information has been used from different source.

Tribe & Jana(2007) express that wikipedia is not a substitute for the books made and is not trying to create an online source for information that is free so that people don’t make a profit from the books they publish moreover it is used as a educational resource for students to contribute their own ideas onto. I agree with this as I believe that it advocates this through the ability for us to edit on previous people’s thoughts. However I think the way that the content is expressed should be managed and assessed before it is being added onto wiki because the phrasing of the content will make people think it is all factual information. We cannot distinguish what is factual and what is critical ideas because of this which is creating issues based around ownership. I believe that if the Digital Rights Management attempted to impose limitations on how factual information should be expressed on Wikipedia then this will protect the original content.

However it can be argued that Wikipedia works in moderation as it references where some sources have been found to protect the rights of those with innovative ideas. On the other hand it can be argued that just because you are re-phrasing work doesn’t mean you are following the academic structure of citing the work you have found properly and referencing it at the end. This could then mean that wikipedia is leaving original writers and researchers in a position where they are vulnerable to exploitation. Moreover it can be argued that they do convey that wikipedia is a educational resource through their community portal where students can use the reference desk to ask people where they found their work, they also have a peer editing page where people can contribute ideas with others to create a page reflecting on a variety of views. However I believe that if copyright is to promote useful products, so they are not exploited then creative commons should give permission for wikipedia to have copyright rights over useful products that may be educationally stimulating for users.

 

References:

Mark Tribe & Reena Jana, 2007 New Media Art Open Source Wiki Book, Tasche

Jay Bolter in Controlling Voices: Intellectual Property, Humanistic Studies and the Internet by TyAnna K.  Herrington , 2001: xi  

Intellectual Property Office UK (2007) Available: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ Last Accessed: 8th April 2014

Wardrip-Fruin, N and Montfort, N. The New Media Reader (2003) London : MIT

 

Challenges to Democracy

Digital media has created a problematic role for state sponsored actions in relation to the ideals surrounded by the public sphere. However we have not yet been revealed to the ways in which the state may act in contradiction towards these ideals. This is particularly because there have been certain government limitations to the free formation of public opinion whereby they have received too little attention by critical media scholars. According to John Keane (1991) these limitations should be explored as a historical trend, as governments have made a number of important decisions within political and bureaucratic circles where the public get limited say to influence the decisions made. A variety of threats bans and arrests have been made to monitor journalistic media so that it favours political power. Unlike today, the media is open to participation however Gripsrud (2002) states that prior restraints have created a number of informal and formal limitations as to what can be published.

There are a number of laws regulating the access of government documents. According to Gripsrud (2002:250) post-publication censorship allows legal action to be “instigated against media which publish material that state would like to keep secret” these are put forth when the state is under national crisis. An example of this is when the British Government created a ban on interviews with the IRA members on British television. It wasn’t until the C20th where armed secrecy was introduced to encourage activities of secret services within the police and military forces in western democracies. Gripsrud (2002) states that the Cold war influenced these organizations and enabled them to conduct investigations of suspected individuals. These extensive investigations include phone hacking, bugging of homes and break-ins without having a warrant. These secret services have been given freedom from democratic constraints and public insight.

According to Keane (1991) there is a long tradition of lying in western politics however some forms of lying have been regarded as legitimate reasons of attaining political goals. Lying has become a practice of information management and public relations. Keane (1991) states that governments are equipped with communication experts who attempt to provide the public with positive information about government activities. Gripsrud (2002) states that press conferences have been used as a way for the government to promote a message, questions may be allowed however follow –up questions are rejected. Keane (1991:102) says that “Briefings are especially important occasions for gentle lying”.

Modern states use advertising to promote their ideas. According to Keane (1991) during 1990 British state power spent £200million a year on advertising; they were the second largest state that used advertising. Keane (1991:106) states that “Political interviews tend to become vehicles for political persuasion and veiled party-political broadcasts”. During the C20th, private organizations have become close cooperation with the state. Decisions are made in meetings between representative of the state and representatives of these organizations. They are closed from the public. Gripsurd (2002) states that corporatism favours the strongest organizations however large organizations are often bureauticratically driven with limited reference to the public sphere.

A case study that explores this issue:      Chinese state censorship

 

The Chinese Goverment have imposed strict authority over media censorship to avoid potential opposition of their power. This involves monitoring systems, hacking, jailing journalists & bloggers and abolishing any risky publications or websites discussing state issues.

This chart shows the number of deleted messages about controversial figures in China in the space of a month

 

Bamman, D. O Connor, B & Smith, N (2012) Censorship and deletion practices in Chinese Social Media, First Monday,17(3)

 

     “Chinese microblogging sites like Sina Weibo, Tencent, Sohu and others have the potential to change the face of censorship in China by requiring censors to police the content of over 200 million producers of information. In this large–scale analysis of deletion practices in Chinese social media, we showed that what has been suggested anecdotally by individual reports is also true on a large scale: there exists a certain set of terms whose presence in a message leads to a higher likelihood for that message’s deletion.”

References:

Bamman, D. O Connor, B & Smith, N (2012) Censorship and deletion practices in Chinese Social Media, First Monday 17(3),

J, Gripsrud (2002) Understanding Media Culture, Oxford University Press Inc, New York

Keane, John (1991) The Media and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press