eDocumentaries

“The relatively uncommercial aspects of documentary throughout history has forced the genre to the continuous search for its ideal platform”, Ana Vicente.

The 'red tape' required for funding and distribution of documentaries via the professional film industry can work to prevent would be film makers, particularly social activists, from creating content that is often critical of the status quo. For this reason I think online documentaries are particularly important in helping to ensure the potential for all voices to be heard, and more importantly, freedom of speech.

Enabling documentaries to be viewed online has opened up a world of possibilities for documentary makers. No longer do they have to have the support of a production company to distribute their creations. Ultimately this means that more voices van be heard and more variety of documentaries can be potentially viewed.

This is a very positive thing for society at large. The benefits of not having only commercialised documentaries available is a great thing. Often, when documentaries have been produced with backing of major production companies, the forces of needing to follow a particular 'doctrine' or 'ideology' has, I'm sure, influenced the content of said doco's. Advertisers and the fear of upsetting 'mainstream' opinions has probably deterred people from saying exactly what they think - and documentary makers may not have been 100% happy to do this but taken on the view that at least a version of what they want to say is getting outthere. This is not a problem anymore thanks to online sources!

The problem that does exist with online documentaries is that not everyone knows how to find them, and as people can be protective of their internet usage they may not want to risk using up too much download by viewing a documentary online that turns out to be something they have not enjoyed. Even though they would have to pay to see mainstream documentaries at cinema's etc. it's almost as though people are less adventurous when it comes to the internet.

In order to help with the fact people are not necessarily aware I am here to offer some sites that provide access to online documentaries (unfortunately I cannot give away free broadband so help with the 'cheapness' factor of some people, but as least directing people where to go is a start):

• http://www.bodocus.com/
• http://www.documentary24.com/
• http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/online/

I have utilised the ABC's online documentary archive and I must say it was very interesting. It gave me access to documentaries on topics I would never have thought to investigate for myself... and it didn't even eat too much in my download either! :P

ePhones

Will the mobile phone screen become the dominant screen of the 21st century? Do we really need another screen to view movies, take photos, design art and access the Internet?

Almost nine and half years years into the 21st century the mobile phone, as far as I have witnessed, has already proved to be the dominant screen, and as far as my imagination can project I cannot foresee another screen taking over. Sure, developments may occur to the mobile phone but I cannot see an entirely different screen entering and dominating the market.

With a mobile in your pocket you literally have access to every source of communication used in the modern day. Social networking sites can be accessed, emails can be received, games can be played, video conferencing can be initialised, text messages can be sent and received and phone conversations can held. In addition to this, maps and GPS functions can be used, music can be purchased and played,memos can be recorded, photos can be taken, and movies can be made and produced.

Phones are so dominant within our lives it could be said out freedom, our privacy, and our sense of self is being encroached upon. This phenomena/feeling can be compared to Foucault's thoughts on modern society based on Jeremy Bentham's

"Panopticon" design of prisons.

Jeremy Bentham designed a prison system based on a "sentiment of invisible omniscience" (see image to left). Bentham himself described the Paopticon as "an new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example". Prisoner's whom were confined within prisons of Bentham's design were under a constant state of 'perceived' surveillance. As the prisoners were never aware of when or if they were being watched, but knew they were in a position for constant surveillance, as consequently their behaviour was modified cater to this. The chances of them 'letting their guard down' was heavily reduced knowing they could not escape the gaze of the watchful eye, regardless of whether the watchful eye was actually there.

Michael Foucault used Beatham's design to establish the idea that "modern society exercises its controlling systems of power and knowledge. Increasing visibility leads to power located on an increasingly individualized level, shown by the possibility for institutions to track individuals throughout their lives. Foucault suggests that a "carceral continuum" runs through modern society, from the maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives. All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance, application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others." In this case of the mobile phone it is not so much 'visibility' that is the relevant factor, however the constant state of alert that it places us in can have a similar effect.

Mobile phones are part of the integrated social network that keeps us (you and me) under surveillance - but instead of being visually surveyed by a guard we are being surveyed by our friends, our family, our work colleagues and our clients. We can always be contacted; kids are only a phone call away from their parents; our bosses can contact us at any hour of the day; clients can call a mobile outside work hours and family can check in at any time of the day. Whether you are home or not, no longer matters. You are assumed to always be available, and that assumption dictates your actions. Most people feel obliged to take a phone call and from this can we ever truly feel relaxed or alone/have total privacy? It seems to me that we live in a constant state of alert. These latter factors are what made me draw a correlation to the Foucault's Panopticon-based theory.

As was the case with my eSex post, Donna Haraway's cyborg theory is once again particularly poignant. It could be said that phones have become such a dominant feature in our day today lives that many would struggle to live without them. I for one know that I would definitely struggle to eliminate mine from my life. Haraway may argue that this need, this attachment one has with their mobile phone, places people into the realm of being a Cyborg; that the mobile phone has become part of them; that without them they would be unable to function as they would like.

"Hi, my name is Liz and I am a Cyborg."

I am 100% behind the Cyborg theory when it is applied to mobile phones. Shamefully it has got to the point where my friends make jokes if I do not have my phone at hand...and the fact that I feel lost if I do not have my phones at arms reach proves to me that my phone has become part of me!

ePolitics

WARNING: Politicians Beware - Parody and Satire Guaranteed

Youtube is an effective means of communication. Once used by amateur video makers for fun it is now an excellent marketing source and online host for members of the public to view a multitude of informational and entertaining videos. For this reason it does present a number of benefits (in theory) to politicians who chose to use the site as a way to promote what they have to say. But do the benefits of YouTube outweigh those offered by the more traditional forms of promotion engaged within the political sphere?

Youtube is very popular, but do its users seek informative videos regarding politics when searching the site? I don't think they do, and to be honest, I think YouTube as a political tool is somewhat redundant. If the videos are done cleverly and generate a public following based on entertainment value then maybe the politicians would have some success, but as it stands many politician chose to use the site as they would any media form. Their YouTube videos present nothing new, content wise, compared to what they would provide for television, and are not necessarily fitting to the types of videos uploaded to YouTube.

For example, take this video of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard:

This video is incredibly uninspiring! Why put this on YouTube? YouTube works in a viral way; if people like a video they tell their friends, their friends watch it, like it, and then tell their friends, and so on and so forth. This is the main reason videos become successful and popular and how YouTube works its magic. This would not happen with the above video; there is nothing special about it. People would only watch it if they were specifically looking for it or if they happened to stumble across it by accident. Personally, I do not see the point of putting such content on YouTube as it does not suit the medium. This video is something that needs to be put on mainstream TV, probably on a news broadcast or special televised announcement, not YouTube. Politicians are so out of touch!

Now, lets see the successful side of politicians on YouTube...and by successful I mean successful for the maker of the video, not the actual politician! Take this video for instance. Look familiar? There is one small difference...

...PARODY! Something which I am sure is a politicians worst nightmare. But if you put a video on YouTube you have to expect this, especially if your are in the political sphere, wouldn't you? Politicians who upload videos are setting themselves up for ridicule and making it so easy for people to poke fun at them. When a politician places a video on the site they make it even easier for people to make fools of them. The author of the edited video does not even have to go to the effort of creating a video from scratch, the footage has been handed to them on a platter and all they have to do is add some quick, witty editing and presto, another politicians integrity is unashamedly chipped away at.

I believe the danger of YouTube has in subjecting politicians to ridicule through parody definitely outweighs the benefits the site could potentially provide them. The culture of YouTube almost guarantees that a satirical take will be adopted towards their videos. Sure, there are benefits, and if the politician has a 'clue-up' PR team, then maybe they would be able to use YouTube with success, but this would be a rarity, and it's basically 'fair-game' when attacking politicians; even if they did use YouTube well there would always be someone out there willing to bring them down.

Conclusion: Youtube and politicians = disaster (but highly entertaining for us!)