The next big thing in digital: Visual Search and Image Recognition

 



The likes of Google and Facebook are going beyond the hypertext form of indexing into a visual realm. Say hello to the hyperimage.

It's being used for online shopping in Google's Boutiques.com website and will be coming soon to all Facebook users as part of its 'facial recognition' photo tagging feature, enabling your name to be suggested to friends when a photo looks like you.






But the potential for this goes far beyond the mere enhanced shopping or stalking experience. This could be another step closer to the real Memex.

With the sea of data that traverses the internet every day, the web now faces the same challenges that traditional media, librarians and scholars have struggled with for years. How do we sort all that information out and present it so that it makes sense? And how does one find quality information that's relevant?

NYU Professor Clay Shirky highlighted this issue during his presentation at the Web 2.0 Expo in New York:

"All of those other media types have the same economics. Whether it's a printing press or a TV tower: 'It cost me a lot of money to get started, and so I had to filter for quality'.

So here's what the internet did: it introduced for the first time post-Gutenberg economics. The cost of producing anything by anyone has fallen through the floor, and as a result, there's no economic logic that says you have to filter for quality before you publish."


It's Not Information Overload. It's Filter Failure.

In the pioneering article, 'As We May Think', published in the Atlantic Magazine's July, 1945 issue, Dr. Vannevar Bush clearly vents his frustrations on the way scientific research is organised and retrieved, based on the system design issues he observed which are quite similar to what's happening on the web today:

"Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path.

The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. It has other characteristics, of course; trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature.

Man cannot hope fully to duplicate this mental process artificially, but he certainly ought to be able to learn from it. In minor ways he may even improve, for his records have relative permanency. The first idea, however, to be drawn from the analogy concerns selection. Selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized. One cannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility with which the mind follows an associative trail, but it should be possible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the permanence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage.

Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and, to coin one at random, "memex" will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory."

Perhaps we could all be using visual 'filters' for trawling the web in the not too distant future. As image recognition reaches maturity it could very well become an an alternative method or welcome addition to the keyword search. So here's hoping for Bush's, "Selection by association".

Digital Imagery: Legal and Ethical Issues

Download or print this publication

People know that piracy is illegal, but at least two thirds of Australians are still tempted to obtain pirated material according to a recent Newspoll survey (Stafford, 2009), which found that almost half of the respondents were undeterred by the possible legal ramifications of such actions.

In light of the recent financial crisis, the results are understandable. Yet despite the economic downturn, Canon’s Consumer Digital Lifestyle Index reported that digital camera sales rose by 23% in the second half of 2008, with Australian consumers purchasing 2.6 million digital cameras, “reflecting the growing importance and integration of digital imaging in Australian consumers’ lives,” (GfK Retail and Technology 2009, p.2).

Illustrating the growing need to protect images and intellectual property in the digital age, Canon also filed a US patent application early last year for the development of new ‘biometric’ camera technology, which imprints the photographer’s iris onto images as a digital watermark. Canon posed the legal and ethical issues pertaining to piracy and the use of digital imagery, succinctly on their application:

“Even ordinary individuals can now create and distribute copies of digital images easily and inexpensively for purposes beyond private use. Accordingly, though the handling of digital images does not pose a major problem so long as it involves photography for personal enjoyment, the fact that such image data can be copied and distributed easily by unauthorised individuals has not gone unnoticed by those who circulate digital images as a business” (British Journal of Photography, 2008).

For the digital media designer, the risks of breaching intellectual property, trade practices and defamation laws are two-fold. As creators of original works across many industries on multiple platforms, designers face the obvious matter of exercising their rights in order to protect their material from plagiarism, moral rights violations and defamation. On the other hand, digital media designers must also beware of committing the same acts in turn, as their works can also be held under the same scrutiny.

This scrutiny is prevalent within the advertising and marketing industries, where digital image manipulation is commonplace. One such multimedia design company, Perth Print Design, specialises in “ready to print artwork”, which is ultimately constructed in order to generate profits for their clients.

“Visual manipulation gives you an opportunity to create fantastical images that cannot be achieved through standard photography alone. When an image is unique, it stands out to the consumer – and this translates into increased revenues,” (Perth Print Design, n.d.).

Ethically speaking, the digital media designer is bound by the rules which govern the particular industry of which they are a part. Both the advertising industry and media outlets which publish these advertisements have their own self regulatory bodies which enforce codes of ethics to which the designer is also bound. This is in addition to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and each State and Territory’s Competition Codes and Fair Trading Acts. The rules and regulations specific to these industries all assert notions of truth and accuracy (Trade Practices Act 1974 ((Cth)) ss.52-53, Fair Trading Act 1987 ((NSW)) s. 42, s. 44, ss. 49-50, AANA Code of Ethics n.d., s. 1.2, Media Alliance Code of Ethics 1999, s. 9), yet much debate lies in how these guidelines are followed in relation to digital image manipulation:

“These particular clauses are relevant to digitally-altered or airbrushed images which are not an accurate representation of truth, and are, in some instances, grossly distorted to make the model even thinner than they are in reality. It is impossible for the average person to distinguish what is real from what is a heavily synthesized image, far beyond the reach of mere mortals,” (Media Code of Conduct on Body Image Working Group 2007, p. 11).

Multiple legal issues also arise when an image is digitally manipulated. Not only does the digital media designer have to be wary of copying someone else’s work, but there are also moral rights to consider, as well as defamatory imputations and even the possible breach of other laws on an international scale.

If copyright infringement is found to have occurred, the digital media designer could potentially be ordered by a court to compensate the copyright owner financially. This could be done by way of damages or an account of profits, where the designer or the company they work for is either ordered to pay the amount the copyright owner would have charged for the work, or they could be ordered to submit any profits made as a result of the infringement. Further costs could be incurred depending on the “flagrancy of the infringement” under section 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), along with conversion damages based on “the value of the infringing articles,” (Baulch, 1998). Apart from civil suits, there is also the possibility of criminal charges and their consequent penalties.

Moral rights and defamatory imputations add further complications to the legal issues surrounding digital image manipulation. As these freedoms cannot be bought or sold, a designer must be especially careful to ensure that they do not violate these rights, even if the image copyrights belong to the designer. Repercussions for any alterations may range anywhere from public criticism to legal action.

“Defamation is concerned with protecting a person's reputation in the eyes of the community. Moral rights is primarily concerned with recognising and preserving a creator's link with his or her work” (Australian Copyright Council, 1993).

When TIME magazine received a public outcry due to the alterations made by darkening O.J. Simpson’s mugshot on the cover of their June 27 issue, TIME’s managing editor, James R. Gaines, published an editorial piece just days later explaining, “that no racial implication was intended, by TIME or by the artist”, “nor did we intend any imputation of guilt” (Gaines, 1994). Although there was no legal action taken, an argument for defamation certainly exists.

Some other famous examples of digital image manipulation involving celebrities include tennis player, Andy Roddick, “complaining about the way he's been portrayed” (SMH Online, 2007) on the cover of the June/July 2007 issue of Men’s Fitness after his arms were digitally retouched to appear larger, while actress Kate Winslet was digitally “slimmed down” (BBC News, 2003) for the February cover of GQ magazine to which Winslet protested that: “the retouching is excessive. I do not look like that and more importantly I don't desire to look like that,” (Hello! Magazine, 2003). In response, editor of GQ magazine, Dylan Jones, justified the image alteration by stating: "we do that for everyone, whether they are a size six or a size 12. It hasn't a lot to do with body size. Practically every photo you see in a magazine will have been digitally altered in this way".

Although the manipulation of images may be commonplace, it is not without consequence. Violating moral rights could lead to court orders for financial compensation, a removal or reversal of the infringing material (if possible), as well as mandates requiring a declaration by the offender to make public their infringement and/or apology (Australian Copyright Council, 2006).

By simply not giving credit where credit is due, or even through altering a stock photo without the express permission of the image’s creator, moral rights could be infringed upon. Even if the original creator’s work is found not to have been copied, mis-attributed or treated in a derogatory way, there are many other laws to consider for those who may have been the subject of image manipulation.

Internationally speaking, there are other laws such as the Right of Publicity and the Tort of False Light which do not exist in Australia, but do apply in other jurisdictions which are within reach due to the widespread capacity of the World Wide Web. In the United States of America (US), Dustin Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. was one such case where the subject of image manipulation, Hollywood actor Dustin Hoffman, was able to sue under four different US laws relating to the right of publicity, trademark and competition laws for the misappropriation of his name and likeness, even though he was not the copyright owner of the images that were digitally altered.

Hoffman pursued legal action against Los Angeles Magazine for publishing a digitally manipulated composite image which had contained Hoffman’s head superimposed on a male model’s body, imitating captured still footage of Hoffman from the movie Tootsie. There were other substantial changes made, in terms of attribution in the captioning of the published photo, as well as the clothes that Hoffman was depicted to be wearing.

“The manipulation exploited and robbed the dignity, professionalism and talent of Hoffman and he was violated by technology, the court said” (Ho Kim, G. & Paddon, A. 1999, p.71).

Hoffman was granted compensatory damages of US$1.5 million as well as US$269,528.50 in legal fees along with entitlements to punitive damages (Dustin Hoffman, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Capital Cities/abc, Incorporated, Defendant, and L.a. Magazine, Inc., Defendant-appellant, 2001) by the US District Court. However, upon the review of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, this decision was overturned:

“The appellate court held that the magazine’s depiction of Hoffman
was not literal but ‘transformative’, was not an advertisement (which was pertinent as commercial speech is less protected), and was not intended to create a false impression that the body in the dress was Hoffman’s” (Caudill, 2004).

In addition to the laws and ethics a digital media designer is expected to abide by, there is also their own reputation at stake, if the case should arise, where the designer is held accountable for breaching these regulations. This has already happened in two notable instances during 2003, involving ex Los Angeles Times photojournalist, Brian Walski, who was fired for combining two separate images into one composite photo, and The Charlotte Oberver’s Patrick Schneider, who had three photojournalism awards revoked by the North Carolina Press Photographers Association for “overly darkening some portions in the digital editing process” (Background Altered – Observer photographer loses awards 2003, 15 August, p. 1).

Schneider consequently lost his job three years later due to another photo retouching incident, which Observer Editor, Rick Thames, explains: “In the original photo, the sky in the photo was brownish-gray. Enhanced with photo-editing software, the sky became a deep red and the sun took on a more distinct halo.

"Schneider said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore the actual color of the sky," the note continues. "He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun." (Thames 2006, cited in Lang, 2006).

The ethical issues and legal ramifications for a digital media designer are robust, complex and yet still in their infancy, as they continue to evolve with the growth of the digital media industry. It is as Peter Giles, director of digital media at The Australian Film Television and Radio School, describes: “digital media is all about change”. “In the digital world, if you blink, you miss it and you’re left behind,” (Giles 2007, as cited in Jordan, 2007).

“There are jobs that didn’t exist a decade ago, in areas like mobile content and visual effects, and others that evolved out of existing careers in industries such as marketing and publishing.

While the developments have been particularly profound in media and communications, every sector of society has been affected” (Jordan, 2007).

The issues surrounding digital image manipulation in contemporary society are multi-faceted and multi-national. A digital media designer walks a fine line between compliance and infringement in their daily work practices, whether they are altering images, designing websites or other forms of content for a specific delivery format.

“Laws and treaties have traditionally been made and enforced by nation-states operating in a patchwork of territories. Now, the media and technology marketplace is being globalized in digital networks. The law is only beginning to respond to this change” (Geller, 1998).

For a full list of references click here

Digital information technology's impact on rave culture*

Digital information technologies offer liberating, emancipating opportunities for the creation of new communities and spaces where young people can belong, yet they can be constraining and oppressive as well.

Digital information technologies could be considered constraining and oppressive in terms of access and usability, and the broad appeal and reach of digital information technologies has actually been a disadvantage to some cultures in terms of removing exclusivity.

For example, the majority of web content is written in English, which means that users must be literate in the English language, or hope that the website they wish to visit has alternate versions which have been translated into their language. The web also favours fast internet access and users without disabilities, as seen in the design and layout of many popular websites such as YouTube, which is better suited to broadband connections, inaccessible to the blind and does not yet provide captions for the hearing impaired.

To expand on my LJA6 essay on rave culture, digital information technologies have played a part in allowing access to what was once regarded as an ‘underground’ rave scene. The proliferation of change and growth in rave culture has traditionally not been openly accepted by the community itself even prior to digital media, forcing fandom and culture cycles.

With the integration of ‘dance’ music in commercial radio broadcasts, enduring news reports of illegal drug busts, films portraying the subculture, and websites dedicated to advertising rave culture, some aspects of this culture’s entrance into the mainstream, in what was once an “underground, pre-commercialised rave scene” (Siokou & Moore 2008, p. 56), is now regarded with nostalgic mourning by authentic raver identities (Siokou & Moore 2008, p. 56, Brabazon 2002, p.20).

So in a sense, digital information technology has removed the ‘exclusivity’ from what was once an underground practice, much to the dismay of the rave culture’s fandom as this has attracted thousands of punters who didn’t adopt their beliefs and practices, thus mutating the culture.

*Discussion Forum Activity posted on 1st April, 2009 by Maria Tan

CMNS6060 - eCulture and Audiences, The University of Newcastle

Children of the night

Download or print this publication

This essay discusses rave culture by describing how a member performs their 'raver' identity online.

Why oh why can’t you just accept it? I’m a raver, not a f***ing drug addict! Yeah that’s right I do Es, I get plastered. Leave me alone, it’s my life, I think it’s sorted (DJ Hixxy & MC Storm, 2001).

Once an ‘underground’ youth subculture of the Gen X and Cold Gen Y age bracket in the 80s and 90s, the electronic music created by digital technologies that spawned the ‘rave’ scene and ‘dance’ culture still continues to assert its influence on youth culture and identity, on a global scale, to the present day.

The fandom created by this rave culture is evident in the continuous evolution of cultural, performative and local dimensions (de Kloet & van Zoonen, 2007) surrounding this rave and club culture community. Centred around a broad classification of ‘dance’ music with its many mutating sub genres, the idolisation of local and international DJs, as well as drugs, jargon, fashion, dance styles, and ideologies; the fans within this community discuss and ascribe to cultural elements which are neither static nor distinct for all ‘ravers’ as “rave, for the majority, is a ‘weekend’ culture of hedonism, sensation and escape” (Goulding et al 2002, p.263) that has now spanned two decades of youthful participation throughout Australia and around the world.

Fans in this community can be actively seen representing their raver identities in the Glowsticking.com (GS.C) website , dedicated to a particular prop used in the performative dance styles of rave culture, called ‘glowsticks’.

GS.C community members construct personalised profiles with the opportunity to blog, link to their existing websites, participate in various forum and chat discussions extending to Twitter and Facebook, and submit articles, photos and videos relating to rave/club culture. This allows the fan to express a representation of their identity online through a variety of textual and audio visual forms with others in the cultural community. For example, in the profile of a senior GS.C member, *+*Beautiful Starlite*+*, she states her interests in the ‘Personal Info’ section using jargon synonymous with rave culture:

Mixing Trance , Music Junkie (I love most EDM Genere's along with other Genere's) [sic], Learning new ways of Freehanding , Living Life To The Fullest, Loving As much As I Can, Laughing Till It Hurts, Smiling, and Just Being Me! P.L.U.R.R .o0o})i({o0o

Within the gallery and article submissions sections, GS.C members are able to upload personally created dancing tutorials, performative audio, videos and photos of themselves, friends and DJs at raves/clubs, and reinforce their online raver identities through attending GS.C’s ‘meet ups’ with others from the community, the outcome of which is documented on the GS.C website through photos and videos further establishing social proof of the community members’ cultural activism.

The online ‘narrative’ space GS.C provides, and the ‘techno’ music central to the performative rave culture are literal examples of how digital technology has shaped youth identity and social practices. This technological acculturation is noted by White & Wyn (2008) of Willis’ (2003) work:

“Young people creatively respond to electronically produced cultural products in ways that surprise their makers, ‘finding meanings and identities never meant to be there’.”

---

^[1] Mixing refers to the audio mixing of various sound sources performed by a DJ to produce the effect of a homogenous and undisrupted sequential sound.
^[2] Trance is a sub genre of dance music.
^[3] Freehanding refers to a style of dance using glowsticks.
^[4] P.L.U.R. is an acronym within rave culture that stands for Peace, Love, Unity and Respect.

For a full list of references click here

Playing dice with the universe

Download or print this publication

This essay analyzes the role 'play' performs in media engagement, and discusses what the study of media play adds to traditional media theory.

“We are always immersed in something, whether it is narrative, a form of media, or just our own thought process” (Brooks 2004, p. 15). To ‘play’ is to begin one such process of immersion, to enter a state of mind which can ultimately define the nature of audience interaction with any form of media. As Vorderer (2001) notes in his analysis of ‘Play Theory’ and its relation to entertainment:

“Many theoretical considerations have described in detail how media users change their sense of reality by taking on the reality provided by the media while temporarily ignoring the physical and social reality in which they are actually living and in which the media is part.”

Interactivity is the media audience relationship in motion, encompassing why and how the audience connects through specific mediums, and the outcomes derived from those interactions. “Interactivity is not just a matter of usage but includes cognitive and emotional processes as well” (Carpentier 2007, p. 221).

The concept of play is important in studying audience interactivity as it denotes a subjective form of involvement that is constructed by the individual. This can in turn affect the individual’s attitudes and choices towards participation. For example, as Livingstone (2008) found in her studies of teenagers’ and their uses of social networking, self expression and creativity was not limited to simply “enacting identity” through publishing factual information about oneself, but also fictitious information that reflected the “teenagers’ playful, occasionally resistant style”.


Play also adds another dimension to both reception and effects studies in that it can augment the audience’s semiotic interpretations and representations of a text that has been either delivered to them or created by them. “Play liquefies the meaning of signs; it breaks up the fixed relation between signifier and signified, thus allowing signs to take on new meanings” (Kucklich 2004, p. 7-8).

An explanation of this can be attributed to the inherent ‘pleasure’ derived from experimentation mixed with imagination, a key theme in Stephenson’s work (1988) which contrasts the concepts of ‘work and play’ as parallel to the dualities of ‘pain and pleasure’. The subjectivity of this pleasure seeking behaviour has the potential to merge effects and reception studies due to play’s “intertextuality” and “fluidity”, an experience which Friedman (2008) describes:

“We may transition from watching a movie, to acting it out in front of friends, to re-enacting it in video games, to dreaming about it. These may be different forms of media consumption, but they are all aspects of the same circuit of play, imaginatively reworking the raw materials of story and character.”

Therefore when ‘Play Theory’ is applied to audience research, the scope of the media-audience relationship widens beyond that of effects and reception as they are intermingled in imaginative experimentation. As psychologist Albert Bandura, originally renowned for his effects related research, said during his later work on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 2001, p. 142):

“Analyses of the role of mass media in social diffusion must distinguish between their effect on learning modelled activities and on their adoptive use, and examine how media and interpersonal influences affect these separable processes.”

For a full list of references click here

Accepting the unaccepted

Download or print this publication

An online example of geeks as 'resistance' and 'project' identities based on Castells' theory of the network society which explains how producers use language strategically to invite audience members to collaborate in the cause.

It’s the rise of the token smart guy, coming to a computer screen near you. Nowadays the mass media is saturated with symbols of ‘geekdom’ through tech websites and magazines, sci-fi genres, comic books brought to life, and even infamous hackers and their ‘underground’ society are now frequently portrayed in films and reported in the news. “In a new media environment characterized by sharing and creative repurposing, some fan practices and texts once labeled as ‘geeky’ or ‘nerdy’ seem much less stigmatized” (Tocci 2007, p. 1).

According to Quail (2009), the nerd has been historically constructed as an awkward, math-savvy, social and sexual failure which Konzack (2006, p. 2) dubs as an “intellectual cultural movement”. Drawing from Castells’ (2004, p. 8) identity structures, it would seem that nerds and geeks have formed their own sub culture of ‘networked individualism’ out of resistance and project identities as a defense mechanism from the world that shunned them.

A subset of this intellectual cultural movement would be the ‘hacker’ culture, in the mass media sense of the term, which encompasses the illegal activity of ‘crackers’ and primarily denotes advanced ICT expertise.

One well known hacker within this culture is Eric Steven Raymond (ESR), a writer, IT professional and self professed nerd and geek. On his website , ESR promotes his books, essays and viewpoints including a “HOWTOs” section on “Hacker History and Culture”.

ESR employs many techniques as elements of persuasive ‘techie-oriented’ language in the form of logical arguments and even humour found in his “Rootless Root” eastern philosophical parody of hacker culture. An authoritative voice is prominent throughout his website, using pronoun language to address the audience as though in direct conversation. For example, on his “In Case You Care” page, ESR writes: “If you are a really serious geek, you probably want to know about my home hardware.”

In ESR’s guide on “How to Become a Hacker”, rules of the hacker culture are outlined for the audience. From the outset, the audience is introduced to ESR as the “editor of the Jargon File” and other “well known documents” implying authority, and even social proof by saying, “I often get email requests from enthusiastic network newbies”. The audience is also appealed to emotionally through the semiotic “geek” and “nerd” identifiers, as ESR asserts in “The Hacker/Nerd Connection: Being something of a social outcast helps you stay concentrated on the really important things, like thinking and hacking”. The reason why these identifiers connect with the inscribed reader is interpreted by Scott (n.d.) as a “deviant (or moral) career”:

Stigmatising labels are hugely powerful in shaping our sense of who we are in relation to significant others and to the wider society, and so a moral career can be one of the most defining influences upon self identity.

Although nerds and geeks have formed resistance and project identities in response to being social outcasts, they have also developed into legitimizing identities (e.g. Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak), whose complementary influence has become ever pervasive in modern society. Kendall (1999, p. 8) relates this to the ‘revenge of the nerds’: “Money confers status in the USA, and business and monetary success confer masculinity. Hence the ‘revenge’ of this previously non-hegemonic group."

For a full list of references click here

Internet literacy for the digital age

Download, share or print this publication

In light of the Rudd Government's plans to enforce internet censorship in Australia, this essay discusses the current state of research conducted by the Australian government in contrast with influential internet and digital literacy research from the UK.

Twenty years ago surfing this sea of information through a web of interconnected networks was an experience unfamiliar to the citizens of a soon-to-be global society. Nowadays it is widely practiced but still seemingly misunderstood in terms of digital or internet literacy, which remains a relatively new concept that is not yet widely taught as part of the curriculum in educational institutions throughout Australia.

Similarly, this was the case in the United Kingdom (UK) less than five years ago. The potential of the internet as a great resource for information and interactivity was widely accepted, and youth were proclaimed to be great navigators of this new technology. But as it turns out, “the gap between what children are actually doing and what their parents think they are doing is a lot larger than many people would have imagined” (Carr cited in Bober & Livingstone, 2005).


The UKCGO Project

It was through further comprehensive research that a clearer picture of internet literacy, with regard to children and their families, was formed through the UK Children Go Online (UKCGO) project. This project was established and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), an independent organisation funded by the UK Government’s Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (ESRC, 2009).

The ESRC commissioned the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) to conduct academic research as part of their ‘e-Society’ programme in collaboration with funding and advice from AOL, the National Children’s Home (NCH) now known as Action for Children, Childnet International, Citizens Online and the Office of Communications (Ofcom) which incorporates the now defunct Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) and Independent Television Commission (ITC). Members from these organisations also served as part of the project’s ‘Children’s Advisory Panel’.

Through the collaboration of these non profit, corporate, academic, government and independent organisations came the ‘UK Children Go Online’ project. This project paved the way for stimulating public awareness of the sociological implications surrounding children’s internet usage. Through media coverage, further research, education programmes and government initiatives, the research from this project still continues to influence society’s understanding of the media-audience relationship with the internet to the present day.

Research from the UKCGO project has played a key role in government debate as actioned by Baroness Susan Greenfield in the House of Lords during April 2006, which provided a basis for further consultation with other government departments such as the Home Office Internet Task Force and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) which has since been replaced by The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS).

More recently the research from this project was used as evidence during the ‘Byron Review’ in the House of Commons during July of last year where UKCGO’s project researcher, Professor Livingstone, was called upon as a witness for the Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons and spoke of findings from the UKCGO project (HC 353-II, 2007-2008). Based upon this research among other works, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) was then established in September 2008 to develop and maintain a Child Internet Safety Strategy (Byron Review, 2008).

This report has not only been significant within the UK or European countries but has influenced international initiatives such as the annual ‘Safer Internet Day’ where this year’s theme of ‘Social Networking and Cyber Bullying’ is based upon research from the ‘Good Practice Guidance for the Providers of Social Networking and Other User Interactive Services’ released in 2008, which draws upon findings from Livingstone’s UKCGO project work.

The reason for this ongoing popularity of the findings from the UKCGO project is due to the comprehensive nature of the studies conducted. The research methodologies employed in the project comprise of quantitative and qualitative techniques which involve a large number of participants. As CEO of Childnet International, Stephen Carrick-Davies, points out in the UKCGO final report: “This is the largest body of academic research on children’s use of technology ever to happen in the UK.”

Another unique aspect of the project is that it goes beyond preceding secondary research which traditionally focused on quantitative audits of factors such as internet usage patterns and perceptions or “small-scale, qualitative work” (Livingstone, 2003 as cited in Bober & Livingstone, 2004). The research methodologies used in the UKCGO project differs by delving into the qualitative aspects of the media-audience relationship based on a uses-and-gratifications and ethnographic model which was centrally focused on the niche market of children in families on a national scale. “The study is unique in that it reveals the thoughts and feelings of young people themselves about the digital age in which they are living” (Biz/ed, 2005).

The shortcomings of adopting a rigid approach can limit the effectiveness of audience research. As Kerr, Kücklich and Brereton (2006) note, the uses-and-gratifications model “is unable to deal with variations in media experience” involving socio-economic and cultural media consumption, and that:

Conventional textual analysis tries to make visible the latent and inherent meanings and pleasures to be found in a text, but this approach can be problematic when applied to new media, where the text is far from static, and is most useful when combined with work that explores how users actually interpret and use the text.

According to Livingstone’s ‘End of Award Report’ (2005), the research was designed using secondary research information and consultation with the ‘Children’s Advisory Panel’ who assisted in forming survey designs and providing guidance throughout the project. Quality control was achieved by forming an ethics policy through external consultation with a number of organisations, and quality check interviews by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) conducted after the project found that the “10% of respondents [interviewed] reported few or no problems”.

In order to explore the media-audience relationship of children and the internet through the uses-and-gratifications and ethnographic models, qualitative methods were adopted to gauge a child’s comprehension of the technology. Where previous studies have focused on familiarity with the internet and computer technology, the UKCGO project also measures their proficiency by determining how well children implement the technology to benefit their lives in what Livingstone describes as “internet literacy”.

To achieve this, the project’s research was conducted in three phases involving over 1500 children and their parents. The quantitative methods were employed in a “national, in-home, 40-minute face to face survey of 1511 9-19 year olds and 906 parents of the 9-17 year olds, using Random Location sampling across the UK” (Bober & Livingstone, 2005) to establish “social, economic and cultural patterning of internet-related interests, beliefs and practices among children and young people” (Bober & Livingstone, 2004). During phases 1 and 3, qualitative methods in terms of focus group discussions, mind mapping exercises, depth and/or paired depth interviews, and direct in-home observations of internet use were employed to collect data amongst children, parents and five youth web producers from varied social groups.

These qualitative methods were not only appropriate, but necessary in order to meet the project’s objectives, specifically in providing “in-depth qualitative data on the emerging place of the internet in children and young people’s lives”, and also to “ensure that children’s own voices are heard in public and policy debates” (Livingstone, 2005). This could not have been accomplished using quantitative methods alone and thus the combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques have proved successful in representing scalable differences and commonalities from results arising within a subjective, individual user experience.


An Australian perspective

With the Rudd Government’s introduction of national reforms as part of the Australian ‘Education Revolution’ involving the rollout of thousands of computers across schools and the introduction of the ‘Education Tax Refund’ returning 50 per cent of costs associated with computer and internet expenses, Australia is still yet to produce internet related, child centred research that matches the comprehensive nature of the UKCGO project.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008): “in 2007-08, 67 percent of Australian households had home Internet access and 75 percent of households had access to a computer”. Digital media technology has already established its presence as commonplace in everyday Australian life, and with this presents new educational and social challenges. “Technology will do you no good unless you have men and women who know how to take advantage of it,” News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch said during the Boyer Lectures last November. “Societies that want to prosper in this new age need to cultivate a spirit of learning and flexibility and achievement”.

Yet ‘digital literacy’ is a relatively new term only recently being discussed within Government, as introduced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (ACMA) ‘Families and Media Literacy Research Forum’ during September 2008, where the ACMA’s Strategic Research Section Manager, Lesley Osborne, announced that the “ACMA’s digital literacy research program is still in its early days”.

Some of the research cited during this digital literacy forum were from preceding ACMA reports conducted in 2007 and 2005 with updates pertaining to youth in 2008, which used qualitative methods by way of phone interviews, surveys and a “self-complete time-use diary” (ACMA, 2007) although the 2007 ACMA report does cite the UKCGO Survey (2006) as part of the research literature reviewed for the report. However, these previous ACMA reports did not employ focus groups or in home observations and discussion of internet usage particularly with relation to children, nor did the ACMA research collaborate with a large number of organisations to incorporate their guidance as an advisory body, in relation to survey design or methodologies used.

With the Rudd (2008) Government’s “evidence-based policy” approach to decision making, it is crucial that Australia draws upon the research methodologies seen in the UKCGO project, among other studies, to establish a clear understanding of the state of digital literacy within the nation as a way forward to addressing key issues pertaining to educational needs, regulation and best practice guidelines.

Research of the magnitude seen in the UKCGO project has already shaped government policy within the UK and influenced many other studies following the release of its findings. The issues raised through the project’s research such as child safety on the internet, lack of internet literacy education and the effects of socio-economic status on access to facilities affect not only children and their parents but society as a whole. It is as Buckingham (2007) notes:

The increasing convergence of contemporary media means that we need to be addressing the skills and competencies – the multiple literacies – that are required by the whole range of contemporary forms of communication.

For a full list of references click here

Location! Location! Location!

Download or print this publication

This essay discusses the bearing 'spaces' have on how audience members are positioned and perceived by media producers.

It’s the phrase real estate agents swear by like some unspoken sales creed of official truth. Although ‘location, location, location’ is advice generally applied in a literal sense when, for example, purchasing the ideal business property to attract customers, the concept behind this capacity to influence certain people by analysing the spaces they occupy, can also be applied to audiences drawn to the media production of intellectual ‘property’ such as magazines, newspapers, TV and radio programs.

By considering spaces as a key factor in audience research, media producers may then generate content to target the “inscribed reader” who O'Shaughnessy and Stadler (2008) defines as “an ideal reader who is constructed by the text or who is imagined or intended by the producers of the text” (p.100) .

When the geographic space where media is consumed is taken into consideration, it creates quantitative and qualitative parameters which can attempt to describe who the audience is. This description of the audience can then be used by the media to produce content which assumes a particular style which may appeal more so to their inscribed reader.

This stylistic approach is evident in the many newspapers available within Sydney which differ in content based on their target demographic. The content in a metropolitan newspaper will vary significantly from a community newspaper based on spatial reach alone without considering audience socio-economic factors.

What news may be deemed significant to local residents in the suburb of Campbelltown such as this week’s front page story, “Bulldozer Cure”, in the Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser (Marchetta 2009), a follow up news article of recent violence in the local area, is not necessarily news of national interest and was not mentioned in any Sydney metropolitan paper this week.

However, during January, the violent event was reported in national, metropolitan and local print, web and broadcast news for approximately 2 weeks with headlines such as: “Elders called in to calm Sydney 'ghetto'” (ABC News 2009), “Life in a suburban warzone” (The Daily Telegraph 2009), and “Local member won't visit Rosemeadow” (AAP 2009).

The local news coverage of the event titled “Two shot and four stabbed at Rosemeadow” (Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser 2009) had ongoing follow up articles such as “It’s time to shake off an unfair reputation” and “Is Campbelltown as bad as what the media makes it out to be?” (Macarthur Chronicle 2009). This week’s edition of the Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser also includes the article “Campbelltonian and proud of it!” by its Editor (McGill 2009).

The style in which this story was presented to the audience by the media is an example of the role spaces play in how messages are positioned to the perceived audience. It also outlines some disadvantage to this spatial analysis of a mass audience by the local community itself declaring misrepresentation in the eyes of the nation.

As highlighted by this example, it seems the resulting content from the spatial perception of a mass audience by media producers is as McQuail describes: ranged from simple prejudice and snobbery to sophisticated exercises in media analysis.

For a full list of references click here

Life in the clickstream*

Audiences are not just passive consumers brainwashed by media products, but are active participants who make their own meanings (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, p. 105).

I chose this quote because I think there has been a shift in recent times due to the popularity of digital media.

The contemporary ‘audience’ is no longer passive but interactive.

The audience itself can inexpensively produce its own messages and communicate that globally with minimal technical knowledge in a matter of minutes. The audience can now literally create ‘the media’.

This has the potential to cause many complications in audience research as outlined in the Uses-and-gratifications model. I believe the parameters have widened considerably.

Information is now accessible through more mediums in many different formats. These mediums are also much more portable, widening the scope of distribution contexts.

How can one predict the effects of information communicated to an audience when the audience itself can influence others in the audience by creating their own messages that coincide with the text?

Mass communication is no longer a one sided affair. The ‘Letters to Ed’ have evolved into a global self publishing, user driven, multimedia cooperative.

In light of the recent media job cuts in Australia and around the world I would have to say this is a pertinent issue within the industry. The traditional mediums and technology journalists use to perform their role in communication have changed and are still continuing to evolve.

It would seem the media itself is changing to suit this new perception of the contemporary audience. The media-audience dynamic has become interchangeable in that the audience becomes the media and vice versa.

I believe this is why Fairfax called their recent culling the “business improvement program”. Times have changed, authorship has changed, the ‘audience’ has changed. The MEAA condemn the job cuts yet agree to the changes in their “Future of Journalism” summits. Welcome to life in the clickstream.


*Discussion Forum Activity posted on 11th February, 2009 by Maria Tan

CMNS6060 - eCulture and Audiences, The University of Newcastle