Group items tagged

How do we more aggressively use blending across our different programs and services? How do we use more mobile technology, in particular, not just wireless, but all the devices that we have? They are getting into conversations about gaming, about social networking, about real, high-impact presentation technologies, even holographics, and then really looking at the analytic side of it, and the whole time thinking about how they maintain the human touch. …

20 percent of all students in U.S. higher education.

So things that used to happen almost in boot-camp fashion — the students come in; they all take the same courses; they march through a four- or five-year program together — forget about that. So whether it is new distribution models online, online models, outsourcing, increasingly commoditized skilled courses — those are all new business models that I think are going to be supported by technology.

Higher ed has been very, very good at what I call the "case method" — copy and steal everything, right?

Dewey also criticized Lippmann’s trust in knowledge-based élites. “A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge,” he argued.

The history of the American press demonstrates a tendency toward exactly the kind of professionalization for which Lippmann initially argued.

The Lippmann model received its initial challenge from the political right.

A liberal version of the Deweyan community took longer to form, in part because it took liberals longer to find fault with the media.

The birth of the liberal blogosphere, with its ability to bypass the big media institutions and conduct conversations within a like-minded community, represents a revival of the Deweyan challenge to our Lippmann-like understanding of what constitutes “news” and, in doing so, might seem to revive the philosopher’s notion of a genuinely democratic discourse.

The Web provides a powerful platform that enables the creation of communities; distribution is frictionless, swift, and cheap. The old democratic model was a nation of New England towns filled with well-meaning, well-informed yeoman farmers. Thanks to the Web, we can all join in a Deweyan debate on Presidents, policies, and proposals. All that’s necessary is a decent Internet connection.

In October, 2005, at an advertisers’ conference in Phoenix, Bill Keller complained that bloggers merely “recycle and chew on the news,” contrasting that with the Times’ emphas

“Bloggers are not chewing on the news. They are spitting it out,” Arianna Huffington protested in a Huffington Post blog.

n a recent episode of “The Simpsons,” a cartoon version of Dan Rather introduced a debate panel featuring “Ron Lehar, a print journalist from the Washington Post.” This inspired Bart’s nemesis Nelson to shout, “Haw haw! Your medium is dying!” “Nelson!” Principal Skinner admonished the boy. “But it is!” was the young man’s reply.

The survivors among the big newspapers will not be without support from the nonprofit sector.

And so we are about to enter a fractured, chaotic world of news, characterized by superior community conversation but a decidedly diminished level of first-rate journalism. The transformation of newspapers from enterprises devoted to objective reporting to a cluster of communities, each engaged in its own kind of “news”––and each with its own set of “truths” upon which to base debate and discussion––will mean the loss of a single national narrative and agreed-upon set of “facts” by which to conduct our politics. News will become increasingly “red” or “blue.” This is not utterly new. Before Adolph Ochs took over the Times, in 1896, and issued his famous “without fear or favor” declaration, the American scene was dominated by brazenly partisan newspapers. And the news cultures of many European nations long ago embraced the notion of competing narratives for different political communities, with individual newspapers reflecting the views of each faction. It may not be entirely coincidental that these nations enjoy a level of political engagement that dwarfs that of the United States.

he transformation will also engender serious losses. By providing what Bill Keller, of the Times, calls the “serendipitous encounters that are hard to replicate in the quicker, reader-driven format of a Web site”—a difference that he compares to that “between a clock and a calendar”—newspapers have helped to define the meaning of America to its citizens.

Just how an Internet-based news culture can spread the kind of “light” that is necessary to prevent terrible things, without the armies of reporters and photographers that newspapers have traditionally employed, is a question that even the most ardent democrat in John Dewey’s tradition may not wish to see answered. ♦

Finally, we need to consider what will become of those people, both at home and abroad, who depend on such journalistic enterprises to keep them safe from various forms of torture, oppression, and injustice.

Invisible audiences. While it is common to face strangers in public life, our eyes provide a good sense of who can overhear our expressions. In mediated publics, not only are lurkers invisible, but persistence, searchability, and replicability introduce audiences that were never present at the time when the expression was created.

Replicability. Digital bits are copyable; this means that you can copy a conversation from one place and paste it into another place.

Context is only one complication of this architecture. Another complication has to do with scale. When we speak without amplification, our voice only carries so far. Much to the dismay of fame-seekers, just because the Internet has the potential to reach millions, the reality is that most people are heard by very few.

The lack of context is precisely why the imagined audience of Friends is key. It is impossible to speak to all people across all space and all time. It’s much easier to imagine who you are speaking to and direct your energies towards them, even if your actual audience is quite different.

two audiences cause participants the greatest headaches: those who hold power over them and those that want to prey on them.

Some try to resumé-ify their profiles, putting on a public face intended for those who hold power over them. While this is typically the adult-approved approach, this is unrealistic for most teens who prioritise socialisation over adult acceptance.

Recognise that youth want to hang out with their friends in youth space.

When asked, all youth know that anyone could access their profiles online. Yet, the most common response I receive is “…but why would they?”

The Internet mirrors and magnifies all aspects of social life.

When a teen is engaged in risky behaviour online, that is typically a sign that they’re engaged in risky behaviour offline.

technology makes it easier to find those who are seeking attention than those who are not.

Questions abound. There are no truths, only conversations.

They can posit moral conundrums, show how mediated publics differ from unmediated ones, invite youth to consider the potential consequences of their actions, and otherwise educate through conversation instead of the assertion of power.

group settings are ideal for engaging youth to consider their relationship with social technologies and mediated publics

Internet safety is on the tip of most educators’ tongues, but much of what needs to be discussed goes beyond safety. It is about setting norms and considering how different actions will be interpreted.

Create a profile on whatever sites are popular in your school.

Keep your profile public and responsible, but not lame.

Do not go surfing for your students, but if they invite you to be Friends, say yes. This is a sign that they respect you.

The more present you are, the more opportunity you have to influence the norms.