Mass Amateurization

“Mass Amateurization”, as described in the reading "Everyone is a Media Outlet” by Clay Shirky, refers to the global effect of the internet on our society and culture, specifically, the means to produce media content and distribute it to the public. It is “a result of the radical spread of expressive capabilities”, such as the capabilities that the internet provides in distributing media content. The rise of the internet as a new form of media opened the door to a new communications ecosystem, one which is no longer controlled by a relative small group of professionals, a “professional class”, as Shirky refers to them, but instead, every member of society can now effortlessly produce and distribute content which can reach a very wide audience.

While media professionals, such as journalists, photographers, writers, graphic-designers, editors, etc., are considered ones who obtain specialized skills for producing media content and publish it, a change can be identified, as the ability to produce and distribute media content is now very simple and available to everyone. This kind of change can be seen as part of what Shirky describes as “radical changes in the overall ecosystem of information”. Although we are still bound to traditional definitions of professionalism, and we don’t consider everyone who has access to produce media over the internet as a media professional in the same way as we look at formally titled media professionals categories, the information ecosystem includes now not only media professionals but the reality of “Mass Amateurization”.

The outcome of this concept according to Shirky is that the distinction between professionalism and amateurism is now being challenged and is weakening, or as Shirky puts it “Mass Amateurization Breaks Professional Categories”, an event in our history that according to Shirky cannot be undone. As a result, media professionals and the firms who have their business plans and profits based on the demand of professional services now need to work harder, adapt, and find new ways to make more money, as technology has made traditional tasks more simple to everyone now.

While thinking about “Mass Amateurization”, what pops into my mind immediately is how the website youtube, for example, enables a platform to anyone to publish media content of any kind and especially, when such content reaches an extreme popularity, it becomes so important that it even reaches the news broadcasts. Such content, therefore, is not presented to the public as part of selective information controlled by media professionals, but instead it is triggered by us, the general public. For example, Chris Croker’s “Leave Britney Alone!” youtube video, which at the time of writing this post has reached 39,920,613 views, was a huge youtube hit which made it to the news and gained the author of the video great popularity.

The future of media professionals, as I see it, will entail new possibilities. While the demand of traditional professional categories will be reduced substantially, new categories will emerge. For example, we can already observe now the various social media experts who specialize in utilizing the web for advertising and massive communications. Also, I believe that there will always be some gap, either intellectual or artistic, between those who we will consider as professionals and the rest.

Works Cited:
Shirky, Clay. "Everyone Is a Media Outlet." Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. 55-80. Print

Mass Amateurization

Clay Shirky basically refers mass amateurization as anyone being able to produce any type of media that a professional would create but lack in quality as it done by a normal person. For instance before the invention of the printing press, scribes where producing books by hand. However with the innovation of technology a steam-powered printing press is created allowing books to be produced at a fast and efficient rate as supposed to being copied by hand. The printing press put scribes out of work, and they were no longer viewed as these special individuals, as books were now teaching people how to read and write. Ralph Hanson states that new media types are scary and what has happened once before in the media will happen again. Technology is constantly evolving, it is constantly doing things better than a human can, once it’s made available to anyone, anyone can become a "professional."

For instance the development of the Internet has made distribution of all types of media possible, whether it’s by a amateur or a professional, it can all be found online. Take filming for example, before the invention of digital camcorders, the only people producing films were studios. Nowadays, anyone armed with a digital camera, or camera phone can produce a film. With websites like YouTube they can upload that video for the whole world to see. This new type of technology as also allowed anyone to be a journalist or photographer. With the Internet having blogs, twitter, Facebook, and other types of sites similar to this allows the production of citizen journalism. Someone with no connection to any news affiliation can expose news to the whole world with these websites at their disposal. Anyone these days who has a digital camera can call themselves a photographer, they not professionals but still a photographer, as long as their exposing their photos to the world with websites like flickr and deviantart, etc.

Professionals have this fear of mass amateurization because of how fast media is being produced by amateurs. Take the news for example, as the audience it is expected for major news channels to tell its audience before anyone else. However, with the Internet people learned about Osama Bin Laden’s death on twitter before Brarack Obama made an official statement about it. Again, Hanson’s idea of everything that has happened before will happen again, just like how the public learned about Bin Laden’s death, Michael Jackson’s death was also released to the public, before any official statement was made, via the Internet. This new medium, the Internet, is striking fear into major media outlets and professionals because of how fast stuff is being distributed to the audience, Hanson’s idea of new types of media are scary, as they fear that they may become obsolete like the scribes.

However in my opinion, mass amateurization is nothing that people should be afraid of, in fact everyone should support it. For instance amateurs can probably only produce one good work in their life time, not everyone is a genius, so professionals should not be worried about being replaced as there will always be a spot for them in society. Mass amaturization is more of an opportunity maker for amateurs in pursuit of these dreams. Nowadays, its no longer about skill like it was during the time period of the scribes, it is about creativity. People like to be amazed they want to see something that has not already been done. Almost every single idea in the media industry has already been done, and with mass amateurization it allows the flow of new ideas, a combination of new ideas can be produced with mass amateurization.

There will always be a spot for professionals in society as there is something’s amateurs cannot do, which is why they are still amateurs. Mass amateurization should not be seen as a death bringer of professional skills, but a new medium for ideas to prosper and opportunities for amateurs. The Internet is indeed a very scary medium, it holds so much power if it is used correctly, and we as everyday viewers do not realize how much influence it has on every society. We subconsciously use it for entertainment and educational purposes, which is why other media outlets fear it so much. However, if these media outlets view it without fear and understand what it can do for them, then they should not fear mass amateurization, but use it to their advantage.

Word of Bin Laden's Death Spread on Twitter Before President Announced It

Welcome to The World Wide Web Sign

Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Shirky

Mass Media, Raplh Hanson

Mass Amateurization

Clay Shirky's argument throughout this chapter was focused on the world wide web. Up until the late twentieth century, the only sources of media were books, newspapers, radio, movies, and television. People who had permission to write for or be a part of these sources were mostly professionals. These groups of professionals were experts in a certain field and only they would contribute to the mass media world. However, anybody can share information on the web and anybody can read it; this is what makes the internet stand out. Shirky's idea of mass amateurization is simply that amateurs are now beginning to control the media instead of professionals.

Take the website youtube for example: there are millions of videos uploaded by people from all over the world. Anybody can upload a video of absolutely anything, and anybody can watch the videos. Fifty years ago, only professionals could share videos they've made with the public. Now, amateurs have that ability as well.

Of course, youtube is only one example of mass amateurization. There are blogs, websites, photographs that are shared on the web. I, personally, think that this is a good thing. It seems, in a way, like the opposite of media consolidation. We are no longer looking to a small group of people for answers and information; so many more viewpoints are shared. Not only are we now exposed to more information, but, for the most part, we don't have to pay for it. Shirky mentions how there is only a limited number of stories that a newspaper can publish, because of space and money, but there is an unlimited amount of information on the internet. Most of it, like youtube, is even free.

The only real down-side that Shirky talks about is how some of these professionals are losing their jobs because of the web. He also says that these losses are okay if they benefit society as a whole. I believe they do. We always want more information from more places. I think professionals will still always have their place. Professionals will usually do their jobs better than amateurs such as making movies, taking pictures, and reporting news. They will still be available, but not as abundant.

Post 3: mass amateurization

Clay Shirky defines mass amateurization as “a result of the radical spread of expressive capabilities…” This means that a huge number of people are doing it as their hobby, in this case, publishing. Being an amateur doesn’t mean that they are necessarily bad at it or not talented enough, it just means that they are doing something that they wanted to do and is not motivated by money. Shirky believes that the first mass amateurization occurred when the printing press was invented; it was the time when reading and writing became important, and scribe was no longer a profession because more and more general publics can read and write.

I love writing Chinese poems. I write poems about what things I see daily and just about anything that comes to my mind. Before using facebook, I’d just save them in document files and look at them once awhile. However, ever since I started using facebook, I’d share them by posting them as my status or publish them as a note. Some people make comments about my works, sometimes they'll “like” it, etc; it’s all good to me since that’s just my hobby and I just really feel like sharing them. Though my poems aren’t the most poetic work in the world, and I’m not a well-trained professional poet or publisher; facebook and the internet still made it possible for people like me to publish without hassle.

The outcome of mass amateurization is profound. Now anyone who has news to publish simply needs a connection to the Internet, unlike the old days, where news are picked to be news by the “professional editors” with their professional bias. This allows people to access the news easily through some clicks of the mouse and Google. Everyone is now a media outlet.

However, mass amateurization also has its flaws too. Recently BBC put up an article about how people who use Internet Explorer tend to have lower IQ compare to those who use Firefox, and Chrome. Sources are from a Canadian firm called ApTiquant which was “only recently set up and staff images were copied from a legitimate business in Paris” (BBC News, 3 August 2011). This was now proven to be bogus, and BBC published another article to claim it. But it was still amazing how famous and notable news publishers like BBC, CNN, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and Forbes could be so careless that they just publish things without confirming it.

The future of the media professional is not too bright. Nowadays everyone who has a camera, a device that connects to internet can be a publisher. The need for media professional to publish news is less vital comparing to the old days. On the other hand, the authority of the media professionals is now questionable given what they’ve claimed about Internet Explorer users having low IQ. So the media professional will probably fade out just like the scribes in the late 1400’s because they are replaceable now.

References:

Shirky, Clay. "Everyone Is a Media Outlet." Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. 55-80. Print.

BBC News:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

Mass Amateurization

The concept of mass amateurization that Clay Shirky has introduced us to explains two things regarding media's dramatic evolution. Firstly, it seems that there is a slim division between what constitutes a professional and what constitutes an amateur in the realm of media technology. At least, based on the traditional ideas our society has held regarding professionalism. This being that a professional "anything" is a trained, reliable, and indispensable expert with some sort of degree or recognition to support his or her position and title. Also, this so-called professional belongs to a minority group based on his or her exclusive skills and aptitude. This leads to the second idea that lies within the concept of mass amateurization. Media technology, particularly the internet, has broadened the margins of exclusivity. Hence, some professions that were once exclusive, have become inclusive in all respects of the word, as we have seen with journalism. In "Everyone is a Media Outlet," Clay Shirky states that "if anyone can be a publisher, then anyone can be a journalist" (Shirky 71).

We are all familiar with Ralph Hanson's fifth truth by now, which states that "new media are always scary" (Hanson 33). If this is the case, professionals and professions that previously did not rely on newer media outlets, such as the internet, to enable the proper and adequate execution of their work, may need to step up to the technology plate in order to actually keep their jobs. Hence fear may be greatest, not amongst those who form part of the "older" school media population, but amongst those within the "older" school media population that refuse to embrace and conform to the current changes in our media landscape, as Shirky mentions in the video presented in Ted's blog. Now, I don't think that fear is something that Shirky is trying to invoke in anyone, nor is he insinuating that advancements in media technology are presenting a dilemma that needs to be feared. I think Shirky is more concerned about invoking a sense of awareness, particularly to those who, like his uncle Howard, cannot fathom how a newspaper in print form could eventually become a historic artifact.

The reality is that as long as the "earthquake in slow motion continues" (Hanson 319), forms of print media may become obsolete, affecting, not all professional journalists, but professional journalists who cannot assimilate the "major changes to the structure of their profession" (Shirky 59). Based on the media's historic timeline which clearly shows a record of replacement, will newspapers and magazines in traditional print format be replaced completely by digital formats? Well, if scribes were replaced by movable type, which was replaced by the original printing press, which was further replaced by the steam-powered printing press, all for the convenience of mass production and mass dissemination, then complete digital replacement is quite feasible. However, if professional journalists in the industry want to fight for the preservation of traditional newspapers, they may have a chance if they are clever and innovative enough in how they approach its hopeful preservation. Nevertheless, their quest for preservation will surely involve collaboration with their greatest threat--the internet, or rather the amateur journalists that have contributed to the current and revolutionary media landscape. This may sound inconsistent, but it's part of the consensus Shirky is trying to promote.

For now, it doesn't seem like the internet is ready to completely take over other media sources, nor do I think it has completely squashed journalism as a legitimate profession. This is mainly because enough people still rely on the "older" media, and enough people still respect journalism as a legitimate profession that cannot exist without the legitimate journalist by its side. I think we still live in a highly selective world that is hesitant to let go of all the variation and the abundance of choices we have when it comes to media. While we have developed a sense of respect and admiration for citizen journalism, and rely on the things we read from people we don't know, we are a society that still values hierarchical structure as well. Whether one's place in the hierarchy is determined by a degree, a brand name, an award, or a reputation, most of us still place primary reliance on sources that are deemed "official" and "legitimate" by the majority.

http://blogs.forbes.com/lewisdvorkin/2010/12/05/at-forbes-we-believe-in-the-continuum-of-media-and-content/

Works Cited

Shirky, Clay. "Everyone is a Media Outlet." Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. 55-80. Print.

Hanson, Ralph E. Mass Communication: Living in a Media World. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: CQ, 2011. Print.

Lott, Chris. "Computer Monkeys." 26 April 2006. Online image. Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/fncll/135465558/

Mass Amateurization

Clay Shirky opens his description of mass amateurization with the story of Trent Lott in 2002 – how he praised Strom Thurmond and the reactions from media outlets disregarding Lott’s comments. Shirky describes that it was bloggers, not news stations like FOX or CNN, who reacted and made the story to a mass public.

Shirky says that news can mean “events that are newsworthy, and events covered by the press.” (Shirky, 64) Like we have discussed previously, news stations & papers will generally present a story to the owner’s liking because news is a “business”. Many think some of the packages presented on hourly news shows or on the front page of a paper are not newsworthy – showing how much a movie made as opposed to a story about a child missing. With technology and communication constantly growing, there is an opportunity for stories to be seen. For a while only “professionals” were able to send messages to the world, but now with a vast amount of social networks, & web design being simple, more “amateurs” can spread their opinions AND amateurs can comment on those opinions as well. That’s not to say that traditional media sources will eventually be outdated & ignored, it just means that there are more outlets to know what is going on in the world without editing the content (just the grammar).

There are too many examples of “mass amateurism” in news publishing to pick just one to focus on. Today we learned more about the Iranian martyr Neda, and just recently the news of Amy Winehouse’s death was spread because of breaking news on Twitter, Facebook, Google News, etc. Shirky’s example of the most important form of “mass amateurization” is Guttenberg’s printing press, and I would have to agree with that. If Guttneberg did not do it, someone else would have eventually, but because of Guttenberg’s invention today we have people publishing their work both either for monetary rewards, or for the pure thrill of writing.

I do not think that the media professional career will die out. As I know from working in sports media, professional writers as well as just bloggers are looked at constantly for information on teams and leagues. Twitter has become a source for anchors and reporters to get breaking news or more information for their show; crediting the source they got it from. For instance – this past weekend was the whole Plaxico Burress ordeal that captivated football fans particularly in New York. Because of Twitter, football writers, professional & amateur, got word of this particular player’s decision to move from the Giants to the Jets. I saw the breaking news on Twitter and was able to write a package for the show Sports Xtra later that night crediting the writers/outlets we got our information from. We added a sound bite that was available via ESPN, though that is not “amateur” it shows what information is easily available nowadays. The point is, at least in the sports world, the combination of professional & amateur is heavily depended on by one another, reporters and anchors frequently look for insider information that may not be attainable by a large outlet such as ESPN. Although, sports & news are very, very different.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/clay-shirky/

“Instead of mass professionalization, the spread of literacy was a process of mass amateurization.” The essay “Everyone is a Media Outlet” by Clay Shirky points at history in order to explain the present as well as predict the future of journalism and the media. While indeed the statement above sounds negative, Shirky’s explanation for the decreasing magnitude of professionalism within media is one that seems to walk the line in between criticism and embrace. As Shirky explains the transition our global society has gone through regarding the effects of literacy and then access to publishing opportunities, he illustrates the decline in the necessity of professional training within information exchange. It appears that, with the example he gives of scribes, once massive populations gained the means of their own literacy and production, the previously valuable “formal” authors became obsolete. One problem here is the legitimacy of the very word “formal” because while indeed "informal" journalism is on the rise does not mean that such should be regarded as entirely delegitimate.

While perhaps professionalism is growing less and less important with the rise of Internet based media outlets, there is something profound to be said for the democratization of public publishing. When the Iranian election protests occurred during the summer of 2009, an aspiring young student and singer was shot and killed amidst the crowd of protesters. While the footage of this young woman’s death was extremely gruesome and disturbing, it would have not been reported on so heatedly if it weren’t for the fact that the videos were uploaded from a bystander’s cameraphone. As mainstream media outlets simply would have not shown such graphic content, public outcry over government unlawfulness would not have been justified in the same way without such horrible but obvious evidence.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31488552/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/video-turns-woman-icon-iran-unrest/#.Tjme9XNuGoA

When Shirky argues that ‘everyone is a media outlet’ his argument is proven more and more so everyday. With the onslaught of newer and newer technological advances (cellphones, digital cameras, laptops, tablets, etc.) the number of individuals who are capable of and willing to speak and share their thoughts, views and pieces of history are rapidly growing. For Shirky, this emerging class of publishers has made professional journalism instances fewer and farther between, creating rarity within a world of amateur documentation. Although Shirky is right in reporting that journalism and the media are not the only spheres in which this shift is occurring, it seems that professionalism will not really be able to die out completely. As entire corporations are built on the backs of the journalists who do their dirty work, it seems difficult to imagine there being no “formal” sphere of news reporting on a daily, even minute to minute, basis. As fast as the world of amateur publishing is increasing, the world in which the professionals live still hold quite a lot of power.

In conclusion, as this mass amateurization takes place all over the world (including countries with lesser access to advanced technologies) it should most definitely not be regarded as useless or delegitimate. While with any newly emerging culture, society must make an attempt to understand changes and the reasoning behind them. In this sense, then, the mass amateurization of journalism, if nothing else, could indeed just be a sign that MORE individuals are taking the time to look, think and spread the word on current events whether they be political or not. And if you ask most people, that is not a bad thing.

Shirky: Mass Amateurization

In his writing, "Everyone is a Media Outlet," Shirky tackles the concept of Mass Amateurization, and its effects on the media world. Mass Amateurization, as coined by Shirky, is the 'result of the radical spread of expressive capabilities (Shirky 66).'With the rise of the internet, emailing and social networking, the lines of heirarchy between professionals and amateurs begin to blur, allowing the amateurs to now have access to what was once limited to the use of professionals only.

Today, everyone has access to the media world with very few boundaries and limitations. What was once a society of the professionals, has now transformed to that of the amateurs. As the media grows and the professional class starts disintigrating, the masses will start accepting their privileges and their role in controlling the media. Shirky uses the example of Music recording and Newspaper printing to enhance his idea of mass amateurization (Shirky 59). With the rise of the internet, publishing costs and difficulty declined, opening these professional fields to the public, and emphasizing the concept of mass amateurization.

With the luxury of the internet, I, an amature, have the ability to take part in the blogging world. As a daily blog reader (http://www.manrepeller.com), and now a media blog publisher, I have the ability to publish and read what was once the domain of the 'professional.' The simplicity of the program, and the effortless accessability makes it easy for anybody to become a blogger. In the world that we live in, anybody "can publish anything anytime, and the instant it is published, it is globally available and readily findable. (Shirky,71)"

From shirkys argument, it seems that with rise of media, anybody can become a publisher, journalist, photographer, etc overnight. Though this is the case, i still believe in a future of professionalism. The demand for our morning papers, weekly magazines, z100, and Nicholas Sparks novels will never cease to exist, no matter how amatuer- accessible our world becomes. In my opinion, amateurs can never and will never fully compensate the job of the professional.

References:

Shirky, Clay. "Everyone Is a Media Outlet." Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. 55-80. Print.

mass amateurization

Thanks for the developing of technology, everyone now can be a "publisher" . We can take photos from our cellphones and cameras and put them up on web, or write a blog about your passions. We upload whatever pictures, text and videos that we think it's funny, important or simply to express our opinions on the web. We capture the first hand information and spread the news, we actually provide access for people to look at. We can be anywhere and anytime when the professions can not. It creates a mass amateurization, many of us is part of it. Sometimes, mass amateurization is necessary.

In June 4th, 1989, when Tiananmen Square massacre had happened, there were people/students at scene trying to take pictures and videos to record what was really happening at that square. Unfortunately, only few of them had cameras and many of them got arrested or killed. Many of the footage we see right now are from professions who were there, only few images are from protesters at the scene. However, photos that were taken by the protesters are the most shaking ones. And the next day, they were on the news allover the world. That was the time when internet hasn't developed in the far east.

In other hand, the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are fueled by the social media, particular by Facebook. People can get what is happening during the revolution right on the spot. Many people who are participating in the revolution use social media to keep the world updating, and get the truth out there, so we could watch closely and follow every step away.

I can't help but wonder, what if there was internet access to the people in China during the Tiananmen Square incident? Would it be succeed? In the past, we rely on journalists to give us the news and information, and now sometimes the situation is vice versa. Journalists look into blogs, youtube, twitter...etc. and sort out things that could be covered by press. I would say that amateurization is a support to the profession. Journalists' role is more like curators now.

Top picture:

http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/nmrs/fa1/files/2010/10/blogging.jpeg

Tiananmen Square massacre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWP3RMsk5iA&feature=related (some photos are extremely graphic, please do not watch during meal time.)

Tunisia Revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY8jeGtBkDo

Net Neutrality

The concept of “Net Neutrality” seems simple: Internet access and content should be free from regulation, discrimination and thus corruption. If behind the invention of the World Wide Web was the philosophy that the collective of human users would make for a diverse and fair communal space of information, then that philosophy should continue to be upheld. While there are indeed many, many business aspects to be discovered and utilized through the opportunities the Internet has to offer, the base of the entire enterprise must stay fundamentally unaltered in order to avoid the possibility of the degradation of what we currently understand as free and open access.

As the United States Government seems to be teetering on fully understanding and respecting the concept of Net Neutrality, it seems ridiculously contradictory to the country’s constitutionality on free and democratic speech to not fully stand up for such a principle. Sadly, it appears that the large media conglomerates, who take any chance they can get to cash in on the American people’s marketability, may in fact be able to decipher a legal way in which they can corrupt the free space of the Internet. It seems that what needs to be done, at this point in time, is for those who know and understand Net Neutrality to inform those who do not. Possibly through the medium of the Internet itself. Before it is too late.