Thumbs up, Mr. Trippi

I don´t know if a lot of people know that Obama´s campaign in 2008 wasn´t the first campaign run on the internet - I didn´t until I read "The revolution will not be televised" a book by Joe Trippi. He was the guy to bring grass-roots politics to its next level by establishing networks of supporters on the internet in his 2004 campain for Howard Dean (who I didn´t know either). In his book he describes his own rise from a so-called "Corn Stalker" in the 1980 campaign for Ted Kennedy to the pioneer of internet-campaigning - and with it, of course, the metamorphosis of grass-roots politics.
I have to say that I am really impressed by his book and his work and that he made some really interesting points:
" For the first time, a new president will be able to use the inaugural adress not only to outline the agenda of the executive branch in the first one hundred days, but to issue a call to the American people to join in passing that agenda. (...) On that day in January, the next president of the United States will be standing at the end of the television presidency, and at the beginning of something different. The networked presidency? The interactive presidency? We may not quite know what to call it yet. But it´s coming at just the right time. The next president - and the American people - have a lot of work to do. Now, finally, we have the tools to do that work together."
Although I´m not quite sure if this vision is practicable in the end - I agree that we enface totally new forms and possibilities of democratic participation. Normally I am of the opinion that social network communities just serve as pure entertainment and that they are of no use when one tries to keep in touch with other people. But that was with regard to friendship. Trippi and Obamas campaign in 2008 made me change my mind - at least concerning their political value. I am exited to see what role these communities will play in the election for the German Bundestag this fall. I recently read an article saying that a lot of the German politicians are afraid that Twitter will have a huge influence on the turn out...So, let´s see!

You are an Ambivalent Networker...

You are an Ambivalent Networker

If you are an Ambivalent Networker, you have folded mobile devices into how you run your social life, whether through texting or online social networking tools. You also rely on ICTs for entertainment. At the same time – perhaps because of the volume of digital pings from others – you may sometimes find all your connectivity to be intrusive. You are confident in your ability to troubleshoot your various information devices and services.

The text posted above is the result of a test which we had to do for our class on new media. What kind of tech user are you?
Up until today I had the feeling that concerning the internet and other technical devices I am a bit old-fashioned or rather nostalgic. I do not stay tuned to the internet all day, I seldom watch videos on you tube and I neither have a profile on facebook nor on myspace. I prefer to read the newspaper for current news instead of checking spiegel online. So you see I am definitely not a web-adherer. And I tended to think that this is not "normal" because a lot of my friends cling to their laptops...But the test proved me wrong. It seems as if I am a very skilled internet user and that I can cope with every technical device that crosses my way. So far I didn´t recognize this ability of mine - but I accept it and feel relieved that I do not have to worry about being regarded backward anymore.

My *Moment of Zen*

So I read the information about the Bradley effect and I just wondered if there would be something like the Özdemir effect if ever a Turk would run for federal chancellor in Germany?
And I´m strongly convinced that it would. It is because of the history of our country that most Germans are afraid to be perceived racist. I have to admit that I myself always think twice before saying something about foreigners - even if it is something positiv - just because I fear being misunderstood. Therefore I suppose that being asked in a poll which candidate they favour, the German or the Turkish one, many Germans wouldn´t answer honestly.
Thus, far more interesting would be the question how long it still takes the Germans to finally overcome this phenomenon and really cast their votes for a candidate with a foreign background? When will Germany have its own Barack Obama? And I found some humorous video trying to answer this question but also some serious discussions which mirror the overall attitude towards that topic...

My *Moment of Zen*

Last session we talked about the US election system (and I finally have a slight idea how it functions, thanks to whytuesday.org)But there was one thing that irritated me. It was during our discussion about the question whether caucuses are vital to the democratic system or not that somebody compared caucuses to the nomination of candidates for chancellor in Germany. I had the feeling that I must have missed something. As far as I knew it is the party that nominates the candidate - the German voter does not have any direct influence at all on whom they pick. But as I wasn´t sure anymore and as I thought that as a student of political science I should be sure about that, I googled it - and wikipedia proved me to be right. (yes, I know that wikipedia is not always the most reliable source)
In that case the US caucuses and the procedure of chosing the party´s candidate for chancellor are not comparable at all. Therefore I am still convinced that it would be helpful for the parties if we had something like caucuses in Germany as well. The SPD or CDU/CSU could each name three candidates who would have to run the caucuses. Using this method they could check beforehand which candidate is the most likely to be accepted by the German citizens - and later nominate this candidate on their party convention - no more problems because a candidate turns out to be unpopular.

Misunderstandings - or Mitchel Cohen´s guest lecture

In order to heaten up the whole "Mitchel-Cohen-guest-lecture-discussion" I finally decided to write down my impression about the guest lecture by Mitchel Cohen.
First of all I have to say that I liked the whole lecture really much - especially because it wasn´t like a lot of students had expected it to be. I think the overall expectation had been that Mr. Cohen would come and talk about Obama and his politics - but as some of you already might have read or experienced yourselves he just didn´t.

We sat down in a circle and discussed a lot of features of politics in general. The majority of those features we discussed might only seem subtle to a lot of us but in fact they are the most influential aspects or the most powerful outcomes of politics. Mitchel Cohen gave the swine flu or cancer as examples. At first glance they have nothing to do with politics but further examined they are the means by which politics are often made nowadays. The thought that we as ordinary citizens do not recognize such manipulations most of the time really makes me angry. But at the same time frightens me in a way.

And I think that was the message Cohen wanted to convey. That we should start to question the decisions made by leading politicians or people holding a higher office more often. That we shouldn´t always follow blindly. I think that this is also what he meant by saying everything we do is political. In my opinion he is totally right. Look, if you decide not to vote as you consider yourself apolitical ísn´t that a political decision as well?! If you decide not to care if a high percentage of wheat grown in the US is genetically manipulated and keep buying the products made of it isn´t that political (remember you support the pro-genetic engineering lobbyists by doing so...)?

Maybe the discussion contained a lot of controversial issues but I think that was what made it so special - it got us all thinking about these topics. And maybe the discussion wasn´t all that fact-based as a lot had hoped it to be - but I enjoyed listening to the other´s opinions and of course to those of Mitchel Cohen - I have to admit that I really fell for his 60´s attitude.

At the end I shortly wanted to discuss the point that some critized that he didn´t offer solutions. During the lecture I myself asked him what economic system he favours - which one according to his opinion would satisfy the needs of all people all over the world. He didn´t answer - only that he considers himself an anarcho-communist.
Later I thought that he maybe again wanted us to think of possible solutions?!

My *Moment of Zen*

Okay, two weeks ago I felt very old-fashioned and maybe even a bit backward. We discussed the topic "what is a social-network?". Of course, as our course is about new media after a few minutes of general defining the term we nearly solely focused on the question if social network services on the internet like facebook, studivz, myspace count as social networks, too.

Well, my notion of a social network has always been (as the adjective social already suggests) that it has something to do with social bonding, with engaging with people because you like them or you share the same interests, with interaction between human beings - I mean, real interaction in real life like meeting for a chat or going out for dinner, not only playing world of warcraft on some game platform or uploading photos on your facebook account. But in the century of i-phones and avatars this notion seems to be totally antiquated.
Nowadays the term social network is always associated with all those platforms that I already mentioned above. Is it because we live in a digitalized world that our networks are digitalized as well? If that is the case can we attribute social to these networks anymore? I mean, they definetely help establishing professional relationships maybe even globally- I wouldn`t deny that - but can people make friends via studivz or facebook? I would claim that it isn´t possible to establish a "real" friendship through such platforms - especially if we have a look at how real friendship is defined. What really underlines my point here is that in the US the number of "real" friendships decreases according to a 2006 study documented in the American Sociological Review despite the fact that the number of Americans using social network software and websites increases.
So, pages like facebook and studivz do not seem to help to maintain or even establish close friendship. You can write your so-called friends a message on their wall but that is way to superficial as that it could substitute all the other activities that friends normally do together or to help to keep close with somebody. To conclude I would say that it is inappropriate then to call all these platforms "social" networks...

my *moment of zen*

Well, my latest *Moment of Zen* isn´t that recent anymore and it is more or less a question I´d like to ask YOU! It was when I prepared my presentation about my new media tool "propeller.com" that I recognized that this website was free of any advertisements...There are even people employed as so-called editors or anchors whose task it is to skim through all the posts in order to eliminate even the slightest indication of an advertisment. I was quite surprised as I´m used to an overwhelming amount of ads on any website on the internet - think of google or gmx or web.de. It is the way they finance their business. So, I began to wonder how propeller finances their site then?! - yet I couldn´t find an answer.

So, If anyone of you knows other ways of bankrolling websites, or even how propeller.com does it - just let me know!

my *moment of zen*

Last session we had this discussion about whether the internet is a public good or a private good.
I think to answer this question is very demanding. First of all one needs to define what makes a good a public good. Applying this definition to the internet it becomes obvious that the internet does not fit the term "public good". It is excludable and it exists a high level of inequity concerning its use. Of course, here in Germany nearly everyone has access to the internet. But in Third World countries the percentage of people having access to the World Wide Web is very low. Experts claim that the digital divide has never been that stark.
So the question posed should rather be "Will the internet ever be a public good?"
I´d claim that as long as there exist social disparities between the West and the underdeveloped countries there is no chance to make the internet available to everyone. Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that there are countries who might be able to afford the digitilization of their societies but refuse it because of political purposes. Think for example of the Chinese government which blocks certain websites because of their content. So, for me a world with internet access for everyone is comparable to a world where all people live in peace - it is merely a wish.

the ignorant german

Are you sometimes grateful that you live in a country where you can move freely, speak with whom you want to speak, believe in what you want to believe and where you can criticize the government without the fear of being send to prison or even get tortured for it?
Well, I am - especially when I am reminded that there exist far too many people in the world who live in a dictatorship or so and do not have any rights at all - who are severely oppressed or prosecuted or have to starve each day because their government does not care about them.
Yet it seems as if not everyone here in Germany is clear about how lucky he or she should be to live in a civilized country that respects human rights.

A friend of mine works voluntarily for amnesty international. Last week she and her fellow members had a booth at our campus to inform the students about human rights and how amnesty champions them.

Afterwards she told me that the majority of those who stopped and were eager to get to know more about that topic were exchange students from Asian or African countries. A lot of the German students just walked by or even asked her why human rights should concern them. It really striked me how ignorant and self-centered some people are. Their attitude towards such issues is "okay, it´s not me who suffers so why should I care??!!" It is these people who take their situation for granted. Half a year in China, Cuba or North Korea would definetely change their minds. All of a sudden they would learn to appreciate what a great life they are able to lead. In my opinion it is very sad that some people do only see misery if they experienced it themselves - that they need to be confronted directly with it in order to be willing face such circumstances. Isn´t it enough to watch the news or read the papers?

my *moment of zen*

Last session it was said that our behaviour is heavily influenced by the media especially by television. I instantly remembered that I once read an book about mass media in which the author claimed that nowadays only 20 % of our personal knowlegde derives from our own experience - the majority is imparted to us by the media. That is quite shocking, isn´t it? So I asked myself
Why are we so easily influenced by all the mass media?

And I found an answer.

Although the author isn´t exclusively focusing on the mass media, I think he provides an explanation that makes sense - at least in my opinion. Day after day the media is bombarding us with stereotypes. For example according to the media only well-shaped blond women are the ones admired by men. So we indirectly receive the message that we have to be conform with these stereotypes or otherwise risk to become outcasts. And so we adopt to what the mass media is telling us. In the end we are reduced to puppets of the mass media which really scares me.

So my suggestion is that we should learn to appreciate our individuality!

"objectivity" in the media of the US

Well, after thousands of minutes of thinking about an adequate topic to start my blog with I decided to dedicate this first post to the often-stated objectivity in journalism especially in US journalism. I remember that last semester I learned in one of my journalism seminars that objectivity is one of the most important features to describe the north-atlantic model of journalism (which includes Great Britain, Canada, Ireland and of course as the stereotype of this model the US). As I am convinced that no journalist on earth can ever be totally objective (there is always a little piece of a hidden opinion somewhere in an article, even if it is only a jugmental word) I never believed that of all journalists the US ones should be capable of that. Since last week I finally have evidence that I was right. In one of my journalism seminars we read texts about how some news channels, radio stations and news papers treated Obama during the election campaign. They called him a marxist, a socialist, a fascist and drew connections between him and a "former-terrorist" called Bill Ayers. Everything without backing up their stories with hard facts to prove their claims. Later as I talked to some students from the US it turned out that these media are regarded as conservative, that is to say supporting the Republicans and that there exist liberal media as well. So to me it seems as if the US media system is blatantly subjective. They can even insult politicians without being charged. I´d claim that in Germany a story comparing Angela Merkel to a terrorist or to a fascist would never be published. And if they would the journalist is very likely to face a trial - but I do not want to speculate too much. I think I do have to investigate a little further...
As a start I found a webpage underlining my point that there does not exist anything like objectivity in journalism

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/mythobj.html