Get inside the box.

The contemporary digital mediascape is on lockdown. Censorship, repression of free speech and propagandist circulation are on the rise. The liberty of the internet is under threat from the emerging fuedalisation of the internets plurality of access, content and voices. The generative nature of digital media is shifting toward a centralized, hierarchical digital information system, controlled by the commercial and political powerhouses who own and control media content and distribution.  Increasingly evident within digital media platforms are what can be described as ‘walled gardens’. The term is used to denote the control of the provider over access, usage and content, as well as the surveillance, monitoring and censorship of undesirable materials, perspectives, and applications. While the movement of users is technically free, the availability and uses of digital information is controlled entirely by content industries. This raises questions as to the reality of the democracy and freedom of the internet and other digitized media platforms. The current media environment is one in which commercial and political imperatives outweigh the significance of egalitarian objectives and as such essentially dismiss previously assumed notions of the internet’s democratic potential. In many cases users are blind sighted by the actualities of the restrictiveness of media stages. Accessibility and application of media content is defined by the terms of the provider, with mere consideration of their own commercial objectives. Largely it has been the fiscal objectives of providers that has guided the shift towards closed mediascapes or ‘walled gardens’. However, the very essence of the internet’s capability poses significant problems for garden maintenance, and cracks are slowly appearing.

Gapinvoid, 2006, Macleod, H

Active Partcipation

The contemporary digital mediascape is one which is undergoing drastic transformation. The traditional foundations of the media and news industry are being revolutionised by improved technological capacities which have seen the established roles of producer and audience being challenged. The way in which news content is constructed, conveyed, consumed and construed has been fundamentally transformed through the collapse of old school distinctions relating to media reporter and audience. What has emerged is a hybrid media environment in which the traditionalist notions of journalist and journalism have been rendered somewhat archaic, allowing for alternative access to the media platforms by previously passive audiences. The passivity of media audiences has dissolved as a cultural shift has seen the emergence of a participatory media culture. That is; a conception whereby media content is influenced by, inclusive of, or of absolute user-generated nature. Thus has emerged a media climate epitomized by a multiplicity of perspectives, two-way communication, and interactivity. It is argued that this newly achieved access to global audiences through digital media has resulted in social pluralism and an improved democratic state through achievements in equality and accessibility. Some however, question the future of journalistic integrity, as the previously privileged position held by media commentator has been stripped in essence.  This raises further question as to the validity of opinion or thought relative to the origin of its information. Is the newsworthiness or credibility of a story told by a citizen journalist restricted by the relative anonymity of its producer? Will this voice even be heard amongst the clutter of ‘news’ on digital media platforms? Arguably there is a sufficient role for participatory journalism in the new-age media context. Through the active cooperation of news institutions and citizen journalists, great value can be added to the quantity and quality of available news. As such, the rise of participatory journalism does not mean the role of the traditional journalist has become obsolete. Instead, as noted by Jenkins “delivery technologies become obsolete and get replaced; media, on the other hand, evolve” (2006, p13).


Jenkins, H 2006, Convergence Culture, Where old and New Media Collide, New York University Press, New York.

Quandt, T 2011, ‘Understanding a new phenomenon: the significance of participatory journalism’, Participatory Journalism, Wiley Blackwell, pp155-176

Socially disabled

The question is posed by Goggin and Newell (2007, p159) as to why the notions of accessibility and inclusion are still so evasive “if we are now possessed of greater knowledge about disability and design.” This proposition led me to consider whether the quandary is in fact a matter of relapse in technological and design capabilities or if it is a matter of considered ignorance. Goggin and Newell go on to further argue their case by suggesting that “reflecting routine social exclusion, the introduction of new technologies sees people with disabilities overlooked, omitted, neglected or not considered” (2007, p160). It seems that attempts to allow for accessibility to those with disabilities are usually only ever an afterthought. I find this concept difficult to grapple with considering the highly politicised nature of contemporary social convention. Much emphasis is placed on the elimination of any such activity, discourse or environment which is seen to be discriminatory in its foundation. So why then is technological disability treated as a matter not requiring concern? I would contend that this is a reflection of embedded social norms whereby the disabled are habitually overlooked, or “included” as an later addition, in order to be seen as politically correct. One such example which highlighted this issue was an article regarding International Pole Dancing Championships – a competition that comprised four categories: men, women, doubles and the disabled. I found this to be highly problematic, as it is a poor attempt to appear to be inclusive of disabled persons, while in fact little effort has been made to allow accessibility and complete inclusion. It is necessary that disability inclusion and accessibility become a matter of course, and not just about political correctness.


Don’t Dis My Ability, 2012,, accessed 01/04/12

Goggin, G and C, Newell (2007) ‘The Business of Digital Disability’ The information Society: An international Journal, Vol 23, Issue 3

Pole dancers compete in the international championships in Hong Kong, 2012,, accessed 01/04/1

To whom it may concern,

Dear Diary.  Dear global audience,

It’s that time of the week again, approaching Sunday midnight – show time; equivocal to the routinized watching of the 6 o’clock news. It’s when my global following of millions log in to catch up on my latest commentary regarding this week’s prescribed reading.

Miller notes and credits the internet’s capacity for connecting communicators to a global audience. This proclamation led me to question who is actually reading this material. Does anybody actually read blogs? I don’t.

Miller goes on to highlight the quandary faced by the art of literature. Audiences are on the decline.  Miller asserts that “self-sponsored acts of reading are declining across the board” and yet “self-sponsored acts of writing…are on the rise.”  For the most part I would agree with the assertion that blogging has become a realm for individually motivated self-expression. If the future of writing and textual representation is entwined with online sources, and yet the majority of online content becomes lost in the masses of internet material, does writing matter? If no one is likely to read it, does it matter if it’s grammatically incorrect or riddled with spelling errors? This by no means intends to overlook the existence of quality writing that circulates on the internet; however I would contend that the proportion that can be categorised as such is minimal.

I do hope against hope though, that I do attract a global following, or that someone, anyone out there decides to read my posts. Perhaps I should get the ball rolling; stop writing and start reading.




Miller, R 2009, ‘The Coming Apocalypse’, Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to teaching Literature, Language, Composition and Culture, Vol 10, Issue 1, Duke University Press.

Blog at