E.J Westlake (2008). Friend me if you Facebook: Generation Y and performative surveillance.

E.J Westlake (2008). Friend me if you Facebook: Generation Y and performative surveillance.


The author starts of the article by illustrating their own experiences with facebook, which I found often resonating my own feelings as a frequent user of facebook, such as Facebook News Feeds and feeling uncomfortable about my online privacy during it’s inception (i.e. who can see what I write and to whom). Some of the key topics the author addresses includes: Generation attitudes, surveillance & Performative surveillance, facebook’s background, fake profiles and availability of information, Facebook’s News Feed controversy amongst other things.

When addressing Generation Y the author argues that most of generation Y who use facebook do so to identify the limitations of normative behavior through unique performances of an online self. As apposed to deviant exhibitionism on or a passive acceptance of intrusive surveillance. Whilst I’m still undecided regarding Westlake’s argument I can see merit to her argument on this. However I would have liked more elaboration on their argument, then what I read.

According to the author, attitudes of Baby- Boomers and Generation X-ers, is that Generation Y is detached socially and politically because of technology. However the author goes on to note –

“Studies show, in fact, that while young people spend more time on the computer (Fox and Madden 2006), they are more connected than ever in large part because technology facilitates contact in ways unfathomable even 10 years ago (Boase 2006).” – E.J. Westlake (2008)

Through my experience of facebook and myspace, as a frequent user, I tend to agree with the latter. Topics such as, socially and politically ones, are strong amongst facebook users including Generation Y.

Westlake also refers to Erving Goffman when addressing computer-mediated interaction. Westlake says,

“whilst certain elements that Goffman defined as part of the “front stage” performance are absent in computer-mediated interaction (visual cues such as clothing and facial expression and aural cues such as tone), they are replaced in chat and on websites by more “staged” elements such as font, photographs, music, and graphics.”


According to the Westlake some sociologists are worried that computer-mediated communication possibly could shape a generation, which has not properly socialized. Whilst these can be seen as genuine concerns it’s too early to know if these concerns carry any warrant. Moreover Westlake says, “Research suggests that computer-mediated contact does not replace more traditional modes of interaction.”

Other topics briefly touched were ‘fake profiles’ and ‘how facebook created its own subculture and language.’ One of the examples used for this was the variations of using the ‘Facebook’ as a verb or noun.

No doubt a major concern for the modern day parenting is Internet predators, which the author briefly looks at under the header ‘Surveillance.’ In 2005 & 2006 Facebook and MySpace made headlines for two reasons - Internet predators and had justifiable unease about the availability of information for state surveillance. MySpace was more global and lacked the similar precincts that facebook enforced on its users. So when several children were stalked on MySpace the alarms were raised regarding the possible threats of online user profiles. Westlake states:

“Facebook users have reported to me that they find the openness of the MySpace environment unsettling:

“I’m also on MySpace, which i used mostly for the kids i know who don’t go to college. It’s sort of creepy tho because of randoms. I had this guy who worked with a musical theatre/ cabaret record label randomly message me because he saw me on [another user’s] friends [list] and thought I ‘looked fun.’ It was true I had a crazy bowling picture of myself as my picture—but it was kinda creepy.”


Westlake says the U.S. Congress has made efforts to have limitation on access to websites such as MySpace and Facebook via legislation such as HR 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act, this would mean schools and libraries would have to make online social networking sites unattainable on their networks.

Through my own experiences online social networking sites like MySpace & Facebook can definitely be a playground for the online predator(s) and that is why I think it is a better idea to educate its users on how to practice online safety. Online networking sites have become very important in today’s society (i.e. politics, business, social and government etc…) so to simply restrict access may not necessary be the answer. Moreover online social networking sites could open up economic opportunities and / or new concepts from online participation.

Christopher Harper (2003). Journalism in a digital age.

In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds), Democracy and New Media (pp. 271-280). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
(In E-reserve)

Clear paper about how journalistic practices change with the internet. It is from 2003, takes a good look at “old media” journalism and continuity in the present.

Christopher Harper starts of by referring to the term “Defining moment” (a phrase meaning which a story / event has defined a specific medium or brand). He then compares defining moments for the other mediums such as television (John F. Kennedy), radio (Hindenburg), print (Vietnam War) and then the internet, in which Harper says Pundits have used a variety of defining moments (e.g. TWA Flight 800 crash, Princess Diana, the mars Probe and Monica Lewinsky case) regarding the web. However he is quickly to state that a defining moment doesn’t always mean that the internet and the WWW have obtained the power to establish a specific agenda for the test of the media and public. It is the media who sets the agenda “agenda setting” (i.e. what to think about…). According to Harper – 1970’s researchers, Max McCombs & Donald Shaw argue that it is not the individual media who determine what a reader thinks, but gives the reader something to think about. Moreover he says the media can produce stories in a certain light which may affect the reader’s interpretation of the news. He says - only the mars probe and Lewinsky case have come close to having a significant impact on the issues of the day by attracting mass interest online.

The 2003 paper says the web cannot set an agenda because the audience is relatively small when comparing with newspapers and televisions. However I no longer see this as the case in 2010 though I still agree that for the most part the broadcast outlets and newspapers still control the bulk of the “agenda setting” of journalistic agendas and public debate…

Harper says – “online journalism stands to alter dramatically the traditional role of the reporter and editor” – this is because it give heaps more power to the reader / user and allows them to challenge the traditional role of the publication as the gate-keeper of news and info. The user can either still depend on the gatekeeper to select and filter the news in the traditional sense or can take a more hands on approach by going to the basic documents of stories. This means the reader can check out the stories for them selves by comparing against other sources. Plus have access to archives, which weren’t so easily accessible using traditional sources.

Online journalism opens up new ways of presenting the story via utilizing a variety of online media-text such as - audio, video and images. It also gives the user the ability to search for data quick and easily. Online journalism also gives outlets for nontraditional means of transmitting news and info. Even back in 2003 online news had the ability to break news headlines faster then any other sources (i.e. TV, print or radio…) and provides more space giving journalist & editors less restrictions when choosing which stories to chose.

According to Harper researchers found that Gate-Keepers – may chose digital online stories based on ‘Intensity of the threshold value’ – ‘Unexpectedness’ – ‘Sociocultural values’ – ‘Continuity’ and ‘Cultural proximity or relevance.’ Compared to the Gate-keepers roles – which don’t apply to online – ‘Time span’ – ‘Clarity or lack of ambiguity’ – ‘consonance’ and ‘composition.’

Harper says – Computer consultant Leah Gentry argues that while there is much more options online in the way a story can be presented using links, blogs and often broken up stories into their component parts the same traditional Tenets will remain the same.

Another aspect Harper addresses is the structural design of online media. Tribune reporter Darnell Little creates storyboards for what the main pages showing how they’ll look and work, a process which has been used in film and TV for years. However with online media it’s different due to layout restriction i.e. computer screens tend to be smaller then the front newspaper page. So he uses a layering process, which utilizes images, text, headlines, navigation and highlighted links that flows and leads into other parts all of which he says makes the news easy to follow and read.

Harper continues by pointing out the different views amongst reporters regarding digital journalism and its future. He says researchers found reporters falling into three groups - ‘Benevolent revolutionaries’ (Enthusiastic ones about new technologies) – ‘nervous traditionalists’ (the ones that aren’t) and ‘serene separatists’’ (not scared by new technology but think its impact won’t make much difference). As this paper was written in 2003 it would be interesting what the views would be in 2010?

One of the final points Harper touches is - How will new media make its money…? This is a question that still today seems to be ambiguous according to Mignon Shardlow (Topic 3.1 lecture). Never-the-less in 2010 digital journalism continues to break the latest news faster then any other source and gives its readers more power to the user by allowing them to challenge the traditional role of the publication as the gate-keeper of news and information.

TED talk – Jimmy Wales on the creation of Wikipedia

Jimmy Wales first starts of by discussing the architect of Wikipedia, which is a freely licensed encyclopedia written by thousands of volunteers in many languages and is truly global. It’s written by using wiki software, meaning that anyone can join and edit. Wales says it’s managed by virtually all-volunteer staff within a close community.

It’s a free online encyclopedia, which enables its volunteer contributors to collaborating, created, self-organizing, self-correcting an ever-growing multilingual encyclopedia. According to Wales it’s funded by donation from public and is in the top 50 websites and more popular then the New York Times, which employees 100s while Wikipedia employees only one, which is the led software developer.

He also states that one of the most important components that assist with Wikipedia’s Manage quality control is its neutrality policy. A policy that’s carries a Neutral Point of View meaning it social concept of co-operation, avoids some philosophical issues. The Diverse political, religious, cultural backgrounds of its community Wales says are kept together by our NPOV policy. This policy also may make it less controversial then offers.

When addressing the question on how good is Wikipedia he says its not perfect but pretty good considering its crazy model. Wales says when comparing Wikipedia to traditional sources they win hands-down. Wales also uses an example of a quality test done by a German magazine, which tested German Wikipedia. The German magazine found, according to Wales – its not perfect, but much better than you would expect – comparing Wikipedia to traditional sources shows Wikipedia to be generally superior, though weak in some areas. Better then some others such as: Microsoft in carter & Brock house multimedia.