Associative Argument

I'm torn... I want to work on my autobiography because I think it lends itself well to this assignment but I also want to work on my review.
I am more inclined to work alone on the review and in a group for the autobiography.
If I choose the autobiography, my idea is to use video. I was inspired by the format of this Google Chrome commercial:

I could see this working really well for representing not just one autobiography but a whole group.
Still have to figure out the logistics : )

Possible research topics...

-The pervasive use of "everybody" when discussing technological writing spaces- simultaneously empowering and dangerous term...what are the effects of the use of this term? -double life of the American student: the social-global-collaborator versus the solitary student inheriting knowledge . Is writing in an electronic space a good place/tool to bring these two together? Can they coexist?

On why I think comments are for suckers...

A Final Review

 *This incremental essay can be read starting with this post, but may work better beginning with: E-News, A Radical Reading Space?

        I set out to prove that the incredibly interactive, global, and collaborative nature of online newspapers has the capacity to radicalize culture.  I wanted to look specifically at the way the comment feature provides a unique and powerful space for the reader to become the writer in a power neutral environment, effectively effacing the hierarchical binary of author/reader or journalist/civilian. Using the criteria established in an earlier post, I have reached an entirely different conclusion.

Ultimately, the comment section in online newspapers comes down to the idea that with the advent of email, the letter to the editor exploded, and newspapers simply did not have the man power to handle, screen and respond to this influx of “talk back”. Rather than have overflowing inboxes and readers that feel ignored, the online newspaper allows people to vent, express themselves, and rant in a somewhat controlled environment. Therefore, the comment section has come to serve the paper as a pressure valve. Just as leaders have for centuries allowed their people controlled spaces of anarchy (think of Carnival, or the desecration of political piñatas in town centers) to placate the masses and hopefully prevent revolt, the online comment section of newspapers allow people to absolutely lose control and spew anything that might come to mind. Even if the comment is ultimately removed because of offensive content (and where the line is drawn between offensive and not is mind boggling), the author still gets to see their comment published. It does not sit on a basement floor or go through the shredder, it enjoys a short but active and often viral online life. The immediacy of posting a comment does therefore remediate the letter to the editor, yet without remediating the hierarchy of power.

     The New York Times comment section is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It is one of the most censored online spaces I have come across, and therefore does not effectively remediate the traditional writing space provided to readers by the paper. The constraints of moderation and the limited amount of articles that are open to comments make the writing space as infused with power dynamics as the letter to the editor was and is. After more thoroughly engaging with the comment feature of this online newspaper, I have to retract my assertion that it is a writing space at all. While I appreciate the Times’ effort to establish a tasteful and non-threatening reading space, the space they have created for comments is too limited and controlled to be considered an actual writing space. I would call it an interactive feature of the website, or even more nefariously, a simulation of a collaborative writing space whose intent is to placate the reading public. The “moderator” of these comments can be likened to the anonymous editor sifting through letters, and the words appearing on the screen are just as much a carefully chosen part of the total product. If the comments were a true remediation of the letter to the editor, then this feature would not only imitate the original, but would allow for improvements upon the form. Instead, the “writing” has been relegated to a separate screen, hidden below the article and overwhelmed by advertisements, giving the distinct impression that no one really cares. Based on the prevalence of questions such as “what was this author thinking?”, “this article is not accurate because I have a different opinion” and “this writer is pretty good, but he really should have done xyz”, I believe the comment section exists so that unsatisfied consumers of the online news product can be directed to an appropriate space of controlled reaction. Rather than provide a radical new space of writing, the comment feature euphemizes power structures dominating the free press which position the reader as consumer.    

Evaluating the Space

So how have the comment sections in online newspapers remediated the letter to the editor? I will attempt to evaluate this through a set of criteria that are explicitly working in comparison to the criteria set up for the letter to the editor:

• Word Count:
  L.T.E. are kept at 150 words. The comment text box has a character limit, but there are no limits on how many text boxes you can occupy.
• Censorship: This is fascinating. The rules on censorship (or “moderation” as the paper calls it) seem to come directly from the history of the letter’s format:
  “We are interested in articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to the article. We welcome your advice, your criticism and your unique insights into the issues of the day”
  “Our standards for taste are reflected in the articles we publish in the newspaper and on NYTimes.com; we expect your comments to follow that example. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.”
  According to the rules, each comment is screened and either accepted or rejected, but never edited. Interestingly, there is a new feature called the “trusted commenter”. After enough accepted posts, the user’s comments are no longer moderated. So technically you could play the game long enough to become a trusted commenter and then start posting anything you want…other users can “flag” comments, and then it’s up to the paper to remove or not.
  A final note on censorship: most of the hot topic articles that you would expect to generate some serious controversy (such as immigration) are not open to comments.
  
• Immediacy:                                                                                                                                While a letter to the editor must refer to an article published within the last seven days, and of course can’t be published on the same day, the comment section is available to old as well as new articles and can appear instantaneously. 
  
• Audience:
  To be allowed to post a comment the you must engage in threading. You have to either post a reply to a comment or recommend the comment (this can mean recommending to your facebook page, to an email, or just as a part of your user profile). The audience is the web, not the editor, or the author of the article. Scrolling through a long list of comments can often lead into a completely tangential or personal conversation between users. Since you aren’t required to respond to another user the flow of the conversation can at any time be interrupted or redirected by a new comment. 
  • Capacity to effect change: The letter to the editor has the power to inspire a rebuttal from the author, an apology, a series of new articles, a retraction, the list goes on...A comment seems to have (of course there are exceptions) none of these instruments of change built into its inherent structure or purpose. For example, what change would come from the comment below? Now imagine a well written letter published in the Times requesting further discussion of the privatization of college...
  
  

The History Behind the Writing Space

I will focus my review specifically on the way the comment feature remediates the letter to the editor. Traditionally, the letter to the editor is written by a passionate member of the community that just can’t keep their argument inside any longer. Sometimes these letters address a specific article in the newspaper (celebrating or bashing it), and sometimes they simply address and take a stance on a hot topic. Ultimately these letters are meant to persuade a wide audience. In a print setting, these letters must follow a fairly strict set of criteria in order to pass the editor’s desk and make it into the paper. I find it interesting that even with the advent of so many online writing spaces that allow the writer more freedom, the tradition of the letter to the editor continues both online and in print. Why do people feel unsatisfied with their new writing spaces and what about the traditional form of the letter compels them to write there? I would like to look closely at the specific criteria of a letter to the editor in order to examine the way e-news has remediated the reading and writing space for reader-writers (or as Axel Bruns would call them, produsers). To keep my project concise I have chosen to look mainly at The New York Times, which produces one of the most popular print newspapers and has a well read online news source as well. 

         So What is a Letter to the Editor?

image from wikicommons, public domain

Archival New York Times Article Sienna Lomuto

·         

 iiiiiii Letters to the editor have a long history of covering both the mundane (new street signs, or personal letters from figures of public interest) to the radical and political. Today, letters to the editor are only published if they meet a very specific criteria. Check out the standards for the New York Times:

"Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.

We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters. Writers of those letters selected for publication will be notified within a week. Letters may be shortened for space requirements"

 

 Here is a link with full submission information

And for a fascinating look at the selection process, check out this article written by the anonymous editor of the letter section, where he/she gives Tips on Getting Your Letter Published

     As we can see from these specifications, the writer is limited (both online and in print) by the constraints of the editor and the standards of the newspaper. The paper reserves the right to change the letter, and most interestingly, reserves the right to do absolutely nothing at all with the letter. What role does writing take when its civic or social purpose is thwarted by the medium? The Chicago Tribune calls their editorial section "The Voice of the People". When we start to examine the construction of and constraints on this voice, it is no wonder the people were anxious for a less regimented and immediate space to write and talk back. 

These comments are the first of 676 responding to an article posted today called "Women in Texas Losing Options for Health Care in Abortion Fight"(NY Times)

E-News: A Radical Writing Space?

According to Jay David Bolter, Enlightenment thinkers saw “printed newspapers and periodicals as instruments of revolution”(Writing Space 208). These writing spaces had the capacity to radicalize culture, and I would argue that the move from print to electronic writing space has only served to strengthen that force. To borrow from Bolter, the online newspaper has the ability to “remediate” not only the print version of newspapers, but to remediate the hierarchical conception of authority in journalism. This online writing space is drastically different than print newspapers in that the reader can become both the writer and editor via the use of the comments section. A reader can correct, further support, and dispute the article, and has the ability to change at will her own comments as other reader-writers inform her argument. These comments exemplify the social aspect we so often seem to seek in electronic writing spaces. Specifically, the comments serve as the “talk back” feature that Bolter describes in chapter ten. This kind of talk back transforms newspapers into an interactive writing space as well as a tool for cultural remediation.   

Coming Soon...

A review on the "reader views" and "comments" section of The San Francisco Chronicle's online version of the newspaper (www.sfgate.com)
I always read the comments but don't write back...now that I'm committed I can't chicken out!