Comments on: Comment Here on Habermas etc.

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:24:20 +0000

I thought that Bums did a good job of explaining Habermas’ views and analyzing the problems with his argument. In reference to the internet, I don’t think its fair to say that it is the intellectuals that should control the thoughts, power through the media public . If it is true, I would say that the same can be said, vice versa, about the ‘average citizens.’ If it is a public medium, everyone should be able to contribute. And who is it to say who is intellectual, as Bum also says, “anyone can be intellectual.”

This might be a little off topic but all this talk about communication and social networking online made me think more about blogging and kind of its potential to the online medium as a way of encouraging to use the word “I” unlike academic writing (or as Habermas would probably say the “quality media”). For example like in philosophy, philosophical writing uses the word ‘I’ because they have to develop and defend their own positions. Blogs are online diaries, much like monologues, but more than that blogs bridge the personal ‘I’ of a diary with the philosophical ‘I’ of an argument in a public debate. When the debates are posted online, I think its easier using the word ‘I’ and meaning it, which I think -makes the person more confident that they are capable of having their own views. Basically, what we’re doing on the class blog. Just thought this was kind of interesting.

By: Dblair

Dblair — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:43:31 +0000

I found Hartley’s ideas about the time and frequency interesting. But one thing that bothered me is how he made it seem as if more frequent ways of transmitting news can never have as much value as older more traditional means of news transmission. I think it is the opposite. With blogs, youtube, facebook, etc, it is possible to reach more people and to create a community that can tie people with certain views together. (ex. after the virginia tech incident many students on facebook changed their profile pics to show sentiment)
I think that Hartley’s argument doesn’t acknowledge the fact that newer technologies have more of an effect on the masses. But one thing I am left contemplating is whether the frequency of information that is available due to the internet is detrimental? I say this because I am actually curious as to how much information people actually retain nowadays. I also agree with ValerieT, this weeks readings make newer technologies seems like a passing fad.

By: ValerieT

ValerieT — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:09:45 +0000

I would have to agree with jduff’s views of communication and frequency. It’s an interesting perspective that Hartley takes to classify frequencies of communications. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with it 100%, but I can see where the idea is going.

Hartley’s section on the Time-Space Axis was the most interesting to me. Communication is not a factor of time, but of space as well. Hartley focuses more on spaces of political arenas, the space of the public, the city, the state, the country, etc. The idea of an upward, high frequency piece versus a downward, low frequency piece could be up for a lot of open debate. Hartley simplifies the communication model to allow for easier digestion. Of course, it’s easy to argue that space can expand to realms outside of politics, but he makes the concept work for what he was going after.

That being said, the subtext behind readings this week felt as though new technology is a passing fad. Maybe it’s just me. We need to understand technology to move forward, but that we shouldn’t take it too seriously? I guess I’m still stuck in this mode of, “why do we need to classify everything?” Sure it’s easier, but then we are placing value on objects/concepts/ideas. Who’s to say what’s high art, low art, and everything in between? Isn’t it all art?

By: lo

lo — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:34:05 +0000

Habermas seems to think of the general public as unreliable compared to an intellectual few. That claim appears to divide people more than claiming the scattered information of the internet does. I see the internet as offering us various views and opinions instead of only the way one newspaper or news show decide to show us. Even though we do get some unprofessional-looking websites and information seems disorganized, someone still has expressed something on their own rather than giving something to someone else to report for them and having the information skewed and censored.

Blogging would be a higher frequency technology compared to books or film. We blog instead of write a book or make a movie to get information out to the public as quickly as possible. We don’t have to go through the process of finding a publisher or a producer since we can spread the news ourselves. With a video or audio blog, information can seem more authentic than only words because we’re “actually seeing/hearing” someone. I also found the high and low frequency interesting and informative because I had never thought so much about categorizing our culture in time. I also like how Hartley is aware that the frequencies can change and not everything must remain in one category.

By: jduff

jduff — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:44:09 +0000

From these readings I think I got the most out of Burns, “Response to Habermas” and Hartley, “The Frequencies of Public Writing”. I agree with the way Burns pointed out how he thought Habermas was wrong to suggest the internet has a way of further “fragmenting” public discussion of political issues. If anything I think the bigger the community of discussion the better for public issues.

As well, Hartley’s views on Frequency of public writing was an eye opener in several ways. I never thought of the relation between permanency of communication to all those factors of high mid and low frequency’s.

It’s interesting to me to think about how in my opinion I think of blogs and online discussions as a more of a sound way to get to the “truth” behind an issue, kind of like Wikepedia (because of the frequency involved). But then, in context of the “frequency” Hartley talks about that seems to be a contradiction of how to achieve truth/permanency. I think I’ll take more time on my responses before hitting the submit button on blogs and forums from now on.