Twittersphere vs Public Sphere

Firstly, the blogsphere and Twittersphere need to be explained because they are in a world of their own. Blogging allows anyone with Internet access to post their opinions or feelings online for anybody to see. Twitter also allows us to do this but in 140 characters or less. However, for your opinions to be seen by anybody you need followers. So in this respect, the blogging world is different to the idea of the public sphere. Gaining followers on Twitter is a competition for some. It is also a competition to post the wittiest tweet. Favstar.fm promotes the growth of a Twitter community where people are in competition to have the tweet of the day. Obviously this is more likely to be awarded to those who have a large number of followers. The more followers someone has, the more impact their blogging/tweeting has. The current Queen of Twitter is Lady Gaga. She has 28,827,745 followers – possibly more by the time you read this. While a lot of people choose to use Twitter to follow celebrities, others use it for breaking news updates. But you can't be the breaker of news if you don't have followers. 

In his piece on Jurgen Habermas, Marshall Soules said this: “For Habermas, the success of the public sphere was founded on rational-critical discourse where everyone has the ability for equal participation and the supreme communication skill is the power of argument.” This doesn't seem to match the way that blogs operate today. It is not always about the power of argument. Sometimes it is all in the power of the blogger.

References

Soules, Marshall 2008, 'Jurgen Habermas and the Public Sphere',

<http://records.viu.ca/~soules/media301/habermas.htm>

Making Cultures

When people talk about culture it can be hard to know exactly what they mean. I have found this to be true of 'Australian culture'. From what I have observed, there are two main ideas of what Australian culture really is and oddly enough they oppose each other. First there is the idea that we must express our pride in our country and maintain our traditions. Then there is the idea that we welcome all different cultures that help to make up a more progressive identity. 

So is that how all cultures were made in the first place? Are they all just a combination of customs and beliefs that have been brought together over time by diaspora? Does this mean that a global culture is inevitable? Or will tradition prevail? All of these questions (among others) come to mind when I try to understand what culture is and where it starts.

O'Neill (2006) says of culture: “It is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Our written languages, governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of culture.”

If culture is constantly changing, it would be hard to make a culture that would stick. Although it has been done before, it would be hard to make a completely new culture now because it would be influenced by cultures that have already been established. We can't have new cultures without them being combinations of other cultures.

References:

O'Neill, D 2006, 'Human Culture: What is Culture?', 17 August 2012, <http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm>

Image 1 source: <www.experienceoz.com.au>

Image 2 source: <http://www.inc.com/guides/201102/how-to-create-a-unified-corporate-culture.html>

A Global Olympic Village

The Olympics is an event that the various nations of the world get excited for in their own patriotic ways. It is a time for the nations to unite and share a common passion while at the same time planning to defeat each other - even if some athletes have a head start because of where they come from. Nevertheless, it is certainly an event that can capture the world's attention and combine us all to create a global audience.

(Australian hurdler Sally Pearson competing at London, 2012)

We tune in to the opening ceremonies to see the state of the venue and how much money has gone into the production of the evening. The entire Athens Olympics in 2004 cost approximately $11 billion. That is a frighteningly big commitment for a country that was reportedly almost $400 billion in debt (Derek Gatopoulos, Huffington Post 2010).

The money aspect comes into play long before the Olympics actually start. It is obvious that athletes from wealthier countries will be more likely to afford the high level of training that they need to reach Olympic standard. According to BBC sports journalist Matt Slater (2008), the United States Olympic Committee estimated that in 2006, China had 185,184 athletes participating in training at 1782 specialist sports schools. Wealth combined with a large population will surely give a country Olympic domination.

These figures suggest that the Olympics are not truly global, though the event does attract a lot of media attention. As a result, the media have created some kind of global cultural flow meaning that sport is something we can all have in common (even if the aim is to defeat all other competing countries), whether we are from a more modernised part of the world or somewhere that is still developing.



References
Gatopoulos, D 2010, 'Greek Financial Crisis: Did 2004 Athens Olympics Spark Problems In Greece?', Huffington Post, 6th March 2010, retrieved 8th August 2012, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/greek-financial-crisis-olympics_n_598829.html>

Slater, M 2008, 'China vs USA - who will win this blockbuster battle of the superpowers?', BBC Sport Olympics Blog, 6th August 2008, retrieved 8th August 2012, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/08/china_v_usa_who_will_win_this.html>

Own your intellect

The first thing that strikes me when learning about how intellectual property works is that there is a time frame in which an idea is recognised as belonging only to you.

Bruce Arnold (2007) wrote "In February 2004 the Australian government announced that protection in Australia would be extended to life plus seventy years, as part of implementation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement." I do appreciate that our ideas can be protected after we're no longer here to defend ourselves, but to be honest I thought the original owner of such property would be the owner forever. However, I do understand that having this agreement in place prevents organisations and family members from receiving royalties for something that was made so long ago. I also understand that it is unlikely that someone would wait that long to "revive" an idea. Original projects must come with a lot of pressure and perhaps paranoia, as it can be hard to define and therefore protect a concept.

The Wyoming State Library's website provides a Patent and Trademark Resource Center Intellectual Property Chart that describes different types of intellectual property, exactly what is protected and how long it will remain protected. That entire concept is an interesting one; at some point in time it was decided that some ideas need more protection than others. 

At least we have the comfort of knowing that if we do have a highly valuable idea, it will be protected for some time and that we can apply to have that extended. It is also good to know that nobody will be cashing in on these ideas and names in the near future. 

References: 

Arnold, B 2007, 'Intellectual Property Guide: Duration', Caslon Analytics: intellectual property, retrieved 7th August 2012 <http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide19.htm>

Copy Cats Ahead image, retrieved 7th August 2012, <http://explainafide.com.au/intellectual-property/>

Kitchens, K 2003, 'Wyoming State Library', retrieved 7th August 2012 <http://www-wsl.state.wy.us/sis/ptdl/IPchart.html>