When follow is not quite the same as being there. Everyone have a great conference (and dinner :-).
My review of Mark Deuze’s “Media Life” (2012; Cambridge: Polity) appeared in Digital Journalism volume 2, issue 4. My criticism boils down to this point:
Media Life is a daring, provocative and mindful analysis of the many ways in which media have become an irreducible component of the social. It is written in a very approachable style, presented in an impeccable typographic design, and is impressive in its scope of concepts, terminologies, and the body of examples from market research, art and popular culture. One (ironic) consequence of Deuze’s analysis is that it makes media studies as a discipline appear redundant by emphasizing how every social and humanistic science must acknowledge the position of media in the constitution of its objects of knowledge. On a more critical note, however, Deuze’s nebulous formulation of “we” and “the people” leaves much to be desired: whether “we” refers to anyone connected to the global information circuit and “the people” are all those entertaining any tangential relation to the life Deuze describes, definitely warrants a more nuanced sociological analysis. Whose life it eventually is, that is in media and nowhere beyond, will be the task to determine in the future of media/life studies. The consequences of Deuze’s remarkable claim that “we are all on our own but at the same time more connected than ever before” (p. 158) have yet to be determined.
Get a free download of the piece here: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/muTDT8CqBCsnsMiktDAr/full
Full citation: Raetzsch, Christoph (2014). “Review of Mark Deuze “Media Life”.” Digital Journalism 2(4): 617-619. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.885262.
Drop me your comments on Deuze or the review below.
After some time of preparation and strenuous revising, my article on “The photographic legacy of journalistic objectivity” is now out online in Media History. With images.
My basic argument is that the emergence of an ideal of objectivity in American journalism and the photomechanical processes that made photography available as photography in mass print (via the halftone process of reproduction) need to be considered in conjunction. The debate about the value of images and the advantages and deficiencies of certain illustration techniques prefigured the formulation of an ideal of objectivity in journalism, that was, at least until the end of the 19th century, heavily imbued with photographic metaphors. The article appears as part of a special issue of Media History (Volume 21, Issue 3), edited by Marcel Broersma and John Steel on “Redefining Journalism During the Period of the Mass Press 1880–1920” (See the introduction).
Objectivity has been regarded as a central ideal of American journalism in the early twentieth century. The concurrent emergence of photography in the press is rarely associated with this development. The article explores the photographic legacy of journalistic objectivity by discussing a crucial phase in the development of reproduction media for images, the transition from wood engravings to halftones. The former was the dominant mode of ‘illustrated journalism’, the latter became the dominant mode of reproducing photojournalism in print in the twentieth century. The halftone process introduced an equivalence between photographs and their reproductions, obliterating the mediation that had taken place in a code of reproduction that was almost imperceptible. In the contested adoption of the halftone process, it is argued, a shifting valuation of photographs can be observed that prefigures the formulation of objectivity as a transparent code of mediation in journalism.
Raetzsch, Christoph (2015). ““Real Pictures of Current Events“: The Photographic Legacy of Journalistic Objectivity.” Media History 21(3): 294-312. doi:10.1080/13688804.2015.1053387.
First 50 readers can use the free download: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/kYfHUuTBSuEDkeutF2wP/full
The Knight Foundation and Mozilla have launched Open News, a program to explore new ways of doing journalism through software coding, data exploration and presentation. For 2016, there are stupendously generous fellowships available for interested scholars, programmers and/or journalists to work with selected partners:
- Correct!v – Berlin, Germany
- The Coral Project – New York, NY (based out of the New York Times)
- Frontline – Boston, MA
- Los Angeles Times Data Desk – Los Angeles, CA
- NPR – Washington, DC
- Vox Media – Austin, TX; New York, NY; or Washington, DC
Source and further info: The Knight-Mozilla Fellowships: How to Apply
Many writers have left notes or whole libraries on writing. Here is a personal collection of helpful and inspiring works. On the why, the how, and the how in detail of writing.
“Looking back through the last page or two, I see that I have made it appear as though my motives in writing were wholly public-spirited. I don’t want to leave that as the final impression. All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality. Good prose is like a windowpane. I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.” (last paragraph, emphases added).
Jean Paul Sartre (1964). The Words [Les Mots]. Translated by Bernard Frechtman. New York: George Braziller.
Autobiographical study on how the words out there never quite capture what an author has in mind. And that the only way to capture that sense is to know more words, reuse them, innovate them and eventually overturn and redefine the concepts they stand for. The book is conveniently split into two sections: Reading and Writing – alpha and omega of the intellectual endeavor. Apart from speaking.
Stephen King (2000). On Writing. A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Simon & Schuster.
To many a surprise, the master of horror came back to the scene with a writing manual after a car crash almost killed King in 1999. On Writing seems to be written in an attempt to regain confidence in his own voice. King writes about character and plot development, about the personal work schedule and office necessities, and most of all about his passion for thinking up stories – and seeing them published. It’s an autobiography of a life in writing fiction, whose occasional digressions into the histories of particular novels may be only of interest to dedicated King fans. The book also features lists of essential works (says Mr. King) in fiction and non-fiction, e.g. other books on writing. See further the 20 rules for writers or even the “36 killer writing tips” destilled from the book by thewhynot100 blog.
Brand Blanshard (1954). On Philosophical Style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
In this short essay, Blanshard discusses very eloquently the benefits of a clear but personal style in writing, which need not be restricted to philosophical writing. Blanshard argues throughout the text that a complicated style, overbearing ornateness and disorienting grammatical constructions are not necessarily signs of learning or genius but often indicate that the writer wants to feel superior to his or her readers. “Persistently obscure writers,” Blanchard argues, “will usually be found to be defective human beings.” (p. 53). Central to the argument on style is that the content of writing and the way it is conveyed need to address the readers as often and as directly as possible. Style is not an excuse for lack of content, but then, what is being said needs to be said intelligibly. Especially in the social sciences and humanities, relevance for a given argument quite often is derived from general observations, general assumptions about people and society. Such arguments rely on and address a reader’s emotional and creative companionship. Contrary to works in the natural sciences, a given argument is advanced on the assumption that the reader will decide on its plausibility, that readers are offered an alternative way of conceiving of something that they may have already encountered or known all along.
“No one opens a book on algebra with anxiety as to whether the author is going to treat the binomial theorem roughly, or a book of physics with the feeling that hope will be blighted if Ohm’s law comes out badly. But people do feel that it is of importance whether the religious belief is honeycombed, or their hope of survival blasted, or even whether pleasure is made out to be the only good.” (p. 7).
Blanshard is especially at odds with the intricacies of German philosophy (and grammar). Upon reading Nietzsche, Blanshard often “felt like throwing the book across the room” because he is upset by the self-aggrandizing style in relation to what is being said. Instead of calling his thoughts “prejudices,” Nietzsche “obviously takes them for something more and something better ; he takes them as philosophy instead of what they largely are, pseudo-Isaian prohesyings, incoherent and unreasoned Sibylline oracles.” (p.15). Another example contrasts the ornate (and often self-absorbed) German style of Kant and Hegel with the apparently more reader-friendly styles of Thomas Babington Macaulay or Jonathan Swift:
“To say that Major André was hanged is clear and definite; to say that he was killed is less definite, because you do not know in what way he was killed ; to say that he died is still more indefinite because you do not even know whether his death was due to violence or to natural causes. If we were to use this statement as a varying symbol by which to rank writers for clearness, we might, I think, get something like the following : Swift, Macaulay, and Shaw would say that André was hanged. Bradley would say that he was killed. Bosanquet would say that he died. Kant would say that his mortal existence achieved its termination. Hegel would say that a finite determination of infinity had been further determined by its own negation.” (p. 30-31; example given in Barrett Wendell “English Composition,” p. 240f.)
A fine read on writing and an entertaining one at that.
Michael Billig (2013). Learn to Write Badly. How to Succeed in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
In this witty and insightful study of academic writing, Michael Billig makes the convincing case that the incessant urge to publish has had detrimental effects on the quality and clarity of research literature. The author is professor of social sciences at the University of Loughborough (UK) and thus no outsider to the increasing demands of mass publication and self promotion. He writes in an informed, self-reflective and critical way about the way research and its documentation has become a cornerstone in university education and financing. His main points of criticism are that an inflation of technical vocabulary contributes to growing tendencies of branding particular types of research (and researchers) through new approaches, theories or methods. A proliferation of writing in nominal style by using -ization and -isms all over the place, obscures questions of agency and even causality. Billig argues:
“words function as more than summaries of complex social processes … for the words have become commodities in themselves, with social scientists using the ization to label approaches that are to be championed or to be rejected.” (p. 113).
By using labels, approaches and theories as short-cuts to larger bodies of work, scholar conveniently themselves in particular schools of thought without having to spell out the details of their analyses or research programs. As a social psychologist, Billig is especially concerned with the linguistic patterns that create authority at the expense of clarity or balanced arguments. His book is also a plea for personality in writing and an encouragment to question homogenizing trends in research and publishing.
Andrew Abbott (2004). Methods of Discovery. Heuristics for the Social Sciences. London: Norton.
Especially Chapter 1 (Explanation) and Chapter 7 (Ideas and Puzzles) are worthwhile reads on questions of inquiry, its presentation and how to generate new ideas. Abbott finds that the technical aspects of research, which to the student seem like the most important markers of academics rigor and quality, are “just window dressing” (p. xi). Abbott argues that an idea needs to be strong, interesting and challenging in the first place to drive research and inquiry for any extended period of time.
Patrick Dunleavy (2003). Authoring a PhD. How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (h/t Karl Kaser)
From the macro structure of the whole piece to the micro structure of every single chapter, subchapter and even a paragraph. There are many quotes in this text that illustrate what famous writers said about writing and the process that makes ideas turn into words and written texts. For there is no natural procession from ideas to texts. Ideas are a psychological, spiritual or mental experience; texts and their production are a cultural technique, a skill, a craft that is learned by repetition, trial and feedback. Over years. Dunleavy makes the point that the organization of writing (what to put where and when) is just as important as the stuff you write (the content). Most writers would resist such a formalist approach to writing, but then, often enough, a clear structure of argument is visible in an understandable formal organization of ideas on the page. No matter how innovative your argument is, formal innovation tends to distract from the content. It is rarely a good strategy for clear style to labor on too many fronts at the same time.
How? In Detail.
On the technical aspects, and a good lesson in clear writing and a concise ways of expression in English, you may refer to the new (illustrated) edition of William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White ( 2007) The Elements of Style. New York: Penguin. The authors explain basic principles of composition and pitfalls of the English language. In general, they advocate simple expressions in place of verbose blundering. Their chapter on commonly misused phrases is especially helpful for learners of English but can also count as a general style guide for native speakers. The book has examples throughout, contrasting complicated or wrong phrases with simpler alternatives (that basically say the same thing). A collection of often misused phrases has examples such as
“In the last analysis. A bankrupt expression.” (p.76).
“Secondly, thirdly, etc. Unless you are prepared to begin with firstly and defend it (which will be difficult), do not prettify numbers with -ly. Modern usage prefers second, third, and so on.” (p. 86).
The details of furnishing a manuscript and the process of publishing it are laid out exquisitely in the Bible of Editors in English language academic publishing: The Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago University Press). Presently in its 16th Edition (2010), the tome of more than one thousand pages is likely to cover any question you may have about types of citation, style of writing or the correct way of referencing names of ships (p.436f.). The online resource is also quite helpful. This book is not a weekend read but a valuable reference for any writer, even if they are not using Chicago Style for citation. All the chapters–ranging from manuscript preparation to copyright questions, from grammar rules to appendices on the print process–exemplify to the best of my knowledge how effective writing, elegant typesetting and an approachable style can come together to create a pleasurable, enriching and inspiring reading experience. Even for a manual.
Want to extend the list? Add your favorite quotes (with source, please) or books on writing in the comments section.
via Anne Marit Waade
The University of Aarhus is holding a PhD workshop on Visual Culture and Visual Methods, June 10-16. Exploring innovative approaches to practice and artefact-based research, participants will have an introductory session with keynotes before embarking to Northside music festival as their research location.
We will use the festival as a laboratory for different types of empirical studies. We will focus on the exploration of how visual impressions and expressions, including digital visual media (such as Instagram, mobile camera, website) interweaves with (maybe reinforces, maybe contradicts?) the participant’s experience of the music festival.
Keynote speakers are
- Sarah Pink, Professor in Design Research Institute, School of Media and Communications at RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
- Annette Markham, Affiliate Professor of Digital Ethics& Communication, Loyola University, Chicago, and Associate Professor in Information
Studies, Aarhus University
- Anne Marit Waade, Associate Professor, Media studies, Dept. of Aesthetics & Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark
Apply by April 1 via the workshop website.
Featured with pleasure on raetzsch.berlin
via Adi Kuntsman
A Research Workshop on Selfie Citizenship
16 April 2015, @The Shed, Digital Innovation, Manchester Metropolitan University
Organised by Adi Kuntsman, Farida Vis and Simon Faulkner
Sponsored by Digital Innovation, Manchester Metropolitan University, and The Visual Social Media Lab, The University of Sheffield
The workshop brings together researchers from a variety of disciplines, fields and backgrounds to explore the notion of “selfie citizenship” — the growing use of the selfie-genre and, more broadly, the networked circulations of individual and group self-portraits for “acts of citizenship” (Isin 2008).
In the recent years we have become accustomed to photographs of individuals with hand-written banners, as well as to various selfie memes and hashtag actions (#NoMakeUpSelfie, #WeAreAllClean, #SmearforSmear as well as #ICan’tBreathe, #BlackLivesMatter and #UseMeInstead, to mention just a few), spread on social media as actions of protest and political or social statements. Their circulation is global, and their iconography is often deceivingly similar, yet their motivations, causes and context vary – some stand against police abuse or military occupation, others call for clearer cities or smaller classrooms, yet others promote a charity cause or a social awareness, and there are those that incite violence or call for a war. Further, while some perform citizenship as a form of nationalism, other mobilise notions of global citizenship, and yet others operate in contexts where citizenship is absent, in question or violently denied.
Such mobilisation of the selfie genre – understood broadly as self-portraits in viral digital circulation – clearly challenges the prevalent popular view of selfies as narcissistic, inherently a-political and even anti-social. Yet selfie citizenship still remains to be theorised, both as a framework for different understanding of selfies, and as a way to think differently about citizenship in the social media age. This workshop was set up to create a space for an intellectual and political conversation around the notion of selfie citizenship, bringing together scholars of visual culture, social and digital media, and cultural citizenship, into a much needed dialogue that explores the work of selfies, but also charts new directions to think about citizenship as a political, affective, visual and networked phenomenon.
Supported with pleasure by raetzsch.berlin
Fred Turner and Christine Larson, both researchers at Stanford University, have just published an article in Public Culture on a new type of celebrity – the network intellectuals. Discussing the examples of Norbert Wiener, Stuart Brand and Tim O’Reily, the authors present a compelling account of how opinion leadership is both outcome of network effects and entrepreneurial zest to create those networks and opportunities in the first place.
In their historical and iconographic review of Wiener, O’Reilly and Brand, the authors find that the network intellectual is both a spokesperson, who condenses interests not yet formulated as an agenda, as someone who is actively pursuing to build a community to support his (or her) interests and who is committed to spreading a worldview beyond those circles.
Their power and their celebrity no longer come from the ability to express ideas in words or the ability of mass media technologies to broadcast images around the world. Rather, they come from the ability to build new social networks, to generate new ideas, new language, and new identities within them and, ultimately, to promulgate these networks’ labors—all in such a way that entrepreneurs can come to stand before the public as emblems of the worlds they have helped create. Celebrities in this model are hardly empty vessels. Rather, they are full to the brim with the cultural assumptions and social aspirations of the communities they represent (p. 80)
Turner, Fred, & Larson, Christine. (2015). “Network Celebrity: Entrepreneurship and The New Public Intellectuals.” Public Culture 27(1): 53-84. doi:10.1215/08992363-2798343
Back in 2010, Nicholas Knouf developed a visualization of journals belonging to Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Taylor & Francis, and Springer among others. His findings were published in Vol. 1, No. 1 of the open access Journal of Journal Performance Studies, a publication created expressly for this task that never saw a second issue.
In total, Knouf analyzed 16,000 journals, rendering transparent what many scholars knew for a long time. The publishing of academic journals shows similar signs of concentration like other industries handling time-sensitive goods. The irony is of course that knowledge used to mature in far slower intervals, in which the quarterly appearance of a journal was merely a way to test new ideas and present preliminary findings. Before the book was out. Now, articles online “ahead of print” are already cited by colleagues before their author ever hold a printed copy in their hands. It’s online first (and soon only).
Reposted call from Martin Barker (email@example.com):
The “World Hobbit Project” is a seriously ambitious attempt to gather responses right across the world to the films of The Hobbit with the aim of being able to explore both the patterning of the reception of the films (against many variables [country, language, age, sex, educational level, kind of work]) but also to open up an investigation into the changing position of ‘fantasy’ in contemporary culture.
With just a very small research grant from the UK’s British Academy, research partners in 47 countries agreed on a complex quali-quantitative questionnaire, which is currently recruiting responses in 33 languages at this address:
There are already 27,500 responses but we do need more, to be sure that we can with confidence make cross-cultural comparisons, and we have absolutely no money for publicising the project. We will be hugely grateful if colleagues could help in different ways:
- complete the survey yourself, if you have seen the films.
- pass on this information to students, colleagues, family, friends, and asking them to do the same.
- mention and point to the project’s address in blogs, postings, and conversations.
What can we offer in return? All our findings will be made publicly available, in as many forms as we are able; and once we have completed our own work on the database, the entire body of data and materials will be placed in the public domain for other researchers to use in whatever way they choose.
Best wishes, and thanks everyone
Martin Barker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Find the World Hobbit Project on:
Supported with pleasure by raetzsch.berlin