Contemporary Workplaces and Employees (Subject to Change)

The evolution of new media ensures that jobs now come and go, workplaces are available, but sometimes rarely used, and that the role of an employee within any area of this multi-facted industry is never truly defined or restricted (Leong, 2011). The way that media outlets are adapting to suit current social climates and trends means that a media practitioner needs to be adept in several fields in order to remain an integral part of any company.

But for every positive, there is a negative implication that may inherently follow...

• PLUS - Instead of putting together an entire outfit for an important job interview, online interviews via Skype mean you can leave your trackies and uggs on. 
• NEGATIVE - Murphy's law would say that 9 time out of 10, your usually flawless internet connection would flake out the very minute you're expecting the chime of your Skype phone. 
• PLUS - Connecting with people all over the globe has become so easy, it can seem like your best friend or biggest client is not on the other side of the world.
• NEGATIVE - More people are working from home, and trending against manual labour. The real pitfall here is not that skilled workers are at an all time low, it's that there are less fluoro- clad tradies for us to perve on... 

              OR?            

Yeah thats what I thought... Get out from behind the computers boys, thats all I'm saying :)

While these examples only scratch the superficial surface, (and I realise the last one doesn't really fit, I just like admiring fine tradesmen) it's easy to see that if we wish to make a living within the media community, laziness and complacency will simply mean that you'll have a very short career. As kategemzik's blog points out, the dramatised, glamourised life of a journalist is far from what it is perceived to be. It is hard work! Without keeping ahead of the game and constantly looking to update your skills set, there will be a younger, feistier version of you, nipping at your heels keen to take your job from you. Or you may simply become redundant. Scary thought.... 

REFERENCES

Gemzik, Katie. 2011. Working in the media, the glamorous life..? katiegemkic. May 1st, 2011. Accessed May 2nd, 2011 from: http://katiegemzik.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/working-in-new-media-the-glamorous-life…/

Leong, Susan. 2011. "KCB206 New Media, Internet Self & Beyond: Week 7 lecture notes; Working in/ with new media." Accessed May 2nd, 2011. 

...But Google said it was a tumour!?

No, the lump on your head and frequent headaches do not mean you should quit your job, tell your boss and mother-in-law that you hate them and take up base jumping, because wait for it... Shock horror - a Google symptom search is by not ALWAYS (if ever) on the money! If this is a revelation to you, then you should probably reassess your relationship with Google. 

Check again Doc, Google says I really should I be dead by now!
(https://thegirlfromtheghetto.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/do-you-ever-feel-that-web-md-is-out-to-get-you/; accessed April 11, 2011)

Of course, one can be forgiven for taking advantage of the convenient and embarrassment/ cost free diagnosis from time to time, if not simply for amusements sake. But as Jess raised in her 'Just Google It' entry, when it comes to concerns of the health variety, Google is not the place to look for conclusive answers.


Despite having the buzzword, 'cyberchondria' pinned on us 'younger' folk, Lewis (2006) credits the demographic as being better educated and affluent with the current population. Which provokes the thought - are we so immersed in health horror stories, or know too much about things we really know nothing about, to differentiate between a legit and an outrageous DIY diagnosis? Are we becoming victims of the endless expanses of knowledge we have available to us? 

(Insert Arnold Swarchenegger voice) IT IS NART A TUMOR!
(http://srslyliz.com/page/113/; accessed April 11, 2011)

In short, your health is not something that should be left in the hands of the online community. There is no way of telling that the random advisor you reach has any form of accreditations, so when they tell you that your spleen is going to rupture before you finish reading the sentence, laugh it off. And if it is of real concern, consult a real doctor! Use that brain of yours!




REFERENCES


Lewis, Tania. 2006. Seeking health information on the internet: lifestyle choice or bad attack of cyberchondria? Media, Culture & Society 28 (4): 521-539.

We Want You, But the Culturally Acceptable Version Please.

When asked to consider myself as a brand, and what sort of image my online profile conveys, my mind jumped to the blindingly obvious; ones were my physical image, yes i'm a notorious un-tagger, especially if a photo is posted that doesn't portray the right impression of me - i.e 10 cocktails later and not behaving particularly ladylike... Then there is the music choices I put up (or rather didn't put up... No I don't still love the Backsteet Boys...), the family connections I confirm, the interests I profess, the language I use... All of these things portray a watered down, censored version of me. To be honest, there are few people in my 'friends' list who know the real me. But what about the rest? What do people infer from what you share online?

Life - The Ultimate Game Just Keeps Getting Thicker...
(Gallery, http://www.thechad.com.au/gallery/v/User_Album/qwerty/reality+suxzors.jpg.html, accessed  April 4, 2011)

As Deuze (2011) suggests, our lives are beginning to be lived in media, rather than with it. And for the most part, this notion is true. We are so caught up in our online presence that we spend numerous minutes/ hours out of our days posting new things on Facebook, commenting here and there; that we don't even realise we are doing it. As soon as I caved and joined the iPhone yuppy crew- I had never spent so much time on my Facebook page. It wasn't until a week later that said iPhone ended up going for a little swim, that I realised that without constant access to my Facebook world, I felt as though I was missing a limb. 


Baudrillard (1981/1994) said it perfectly - we only experience prepared realities. Everything that we immerse ourselves in, consciously or not, has been carefully crafted and blends in so seamlessly, we are unwitting consumers and creators. Sarah's New Media Blog references new media as an ocean, and it couldn't be more on the money. Her eloquent metaphor describes how immersive and deep our involvement in 'hyperreality' really is. And if one is blasé and unaware of their involvement, it becomes rather easy to begin to drown...




[REFERENCES]


Baudrillard, J. 1981/1994. "Simulacra and simulation." Cited in Leong, S. KCB206 Week 5 Lecture. Accessed April 4, 2011.


Dueze, M. 2011. “Media Life”. Media, Culture & Society 33(1): 137 -148.

Hardcore Politics Do Not Belong in the Facebook Arena!

Like at the dinner table, there are a number of topics that should be consciously excluded from discussion on social networking sites. If we were to follow old- school ethics that our grandparents raised us on, political opinions and fierce debate wouldn't be spoken aloud at all. And yet, Facebook and Twitter are being used at platforms for political agenda, lobbying and fierce debate. Tsk tsk.

If you don't have anything entertaining to say,  don't say it at all!
(Image from Draco2032. (2010).  America's Taboo Language. http://draco2032.blogspot.com/2010/03/americas-taboo-language.html )

As Jess raised in 'Should Politicians be Using Social Media Sites' (2011), people 'add' or 'follow' politicians on said sites to 'connect' with them as people, rather than just as a public figures. Getting to know them on a personal level, and to an extent 'humanising' the cold figure that most government members embody, may in fact broaden their support base. But in this bloggers opinion, if you're a politician with a public Facebook page - unless you're sharing an anecdote about your failed Masterchef attempt or the ongoing, awful smell of your campaign bus- it doesn't belong on Facebook. It is a guilty pleasure for most and a procrastination tool for an even larger majority - both groups who probably don't desire to have their leisure time sullied by controversial debates and well... Serious topics full stop. 


But as Hamelink (2006) highlights, computers have 'created a virtual reality in which truth and lies, real and unreal, can no longer be distinguished.' In other words, unless Today Tonight attacks their online credibility, who are we to distinguish political truths from lies? Most seem to have no qualms with lying during campaigns, so when given the freedom of the keyboard and the absence of their speech writers, it's only a matter of time before the scandals begin to unfold right..? I can't wait; Afterall, isn't that what keeps us enthralled with social networks? 




REFERENCES


Macintyre, J. (2011).'Should Politicians be using social media sites?'. In New Media Interpretation. Accessed March 28, 2011 from http://jmcintyrekbc206.blogspot.com/2011/03/should-politicians-be-using-social.html

Hamelink, C. (2006). The Ethics of the Internet: Can we cope with Lies and Deceit on the Net? In Ideologies of the Internet, K. Sarikakis & Daya Thussu, pp. 115-130. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

(https://cmd.library.qut.edu.au/KCB206/KCB206_BK_313947.pdf)

iTunes Exposure, Embarrassment and Misleading Evidence.

Granted - music, movies and other entertainment choices can paint a pretty clear picture of ones interests, and even elude to what type of person you may be. But like Katherine (http://katkirkwood.blogspot.com/), my iTunes is full of things that could paint a rather embarrassing picture!

Yeah, I'd be embarrassed of some things in my iTunes library.
(terrible twos and running shoes, 2011.  http://2snshoes.blogspot.com/. Accessed 20 March, 2011)

My music collection is a crazy, sporadic mix of 6013 songs that have been accumulated over the past 6 years since my first iPod. Some are all time loves, some I've never heard before and a vast majority should probably be deleted. But they won't be. And that's just the beginning - there's applications, TV series, games etc that could reveal a lot about my personality. But they don't. I just get bored a lot...

In Levy's (2006) article, The Perfect Thing, he explores at length how a music collection is self- defining. I disagree. The exploration of playlists however, is more on the money. Playlists are personal - but for a stranger sitting next to you on the train to get a good enough glimpse to judge you... Well I'd be changing seats.

Snooping is an everyday pastime, didn't you know?
(cartoon comics, n.d. http://www.mexicanmemorabilia.com/cartooncomics.html. Accessed 20 March, 2011)

On the other hand, both my Mum and sister wouldn't have a clue how to put together a playlist, let alone put one on their iPods. So they rely on me, and my taste in music. Which would say nothing about them should a stranger get a hold of their pods. Tony Blair is not alone on that one (Levy, 2006).

The iTunes hybrid of music sharing and social networking, 'Ping', if successful, will undoubtedly satisfy all the curiosities of the peripheral snoopers... Hopefully. Permitted snooping is different, right?

__________
REFERENCES


Levy, S. 2006. “Identity” in The perfect thing: How the iPod shuffles commerce, culture and coolness, 21 – 41. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. Accessed on March 20, 2011. https://cmd.library.qut.edu.au/KCB201/KCB201_BK_272671.pdf

Online Social Networks- Centre Stage and Spotlight to the Over-Share.

We all know the one. The one person we leave in our Facebook or Twitter 'friends' list, purely for entertainment value. Yes, this person is the over- sharer, or also commonly referred to as the 'look at me'. 

(n.a. The angry dome. (2008). Emerging new trend: butt cleavage. http://pinstripebindi.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/emerging-new-trend-butt-cleavage/. Accessed 13 March, 2011) 

                                         

                                       Exhibit A - Physical Over- Share.

                        

We know what topping they had on their morning toast, and every song lyric that reminds them of their current tumultuous love life. But what is it about these online environments that makes these people A. want to share the intimate details of their lives, opening themselves up to the possibility of widespread ridicule, and B. think that we want to hear/ care about the explicit details of their ordain lives?

Granted, if you're Ashton Kutcher musing about how sweet partner Demi Moore looks in her new underwear, then sure, we get the appeal. But if you're neither of these people, or blessed with celebrity status, chances are, no one wants to know!

(n.a. Yow, Yow! (2009) Because sometimes... People just don't want to know. http://itsyowyow.com/2009/06/07/. Accessed 13, March 2011)

Exhibit B -  The Virtual Over- Share

The Donath and Boyd reading highlights the fact that simply, people love to be noticed. And displaying connections to say.. A local sporting celebrity, may be deemed worthy of privacy sacrifice for the attention and predicted praise it may return.

The 'Words Without Sound' (http://visitorqueue.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/the-art-of-oversharing/) blog author visits the possible reasonings for why people share such private details with their online communities. Among possibilities such as drama and sympathy, plain old attention seeking seems to be the consensus.

So perhaps get to know your over-sharing friend. Maybe they're reaching out; Maybe they don't have real- world friendships for which would be a more appropriate ground for sharing. And you never know, the 50 status updates per day could start diminishing...


REFERENCES 


Donath, J. and Boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection.   BT Technology Journal , volume 22 (4): 71-82.  Accessed March 13, 2011.


Nikki. (2011). The art of oversharing. http://visitorqueue.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/the-art-of-oversharing/. Accessed March 13, 2011.