The Memes of Production: A cultural studies weblog

Interesting link from Kevin Drum on one of the consequences of the decline in traditional newspaper reporting budgets — newspapers are less likely to file lawsuits to obtain information from public bodies.

Drum wraps up with a sentence that tickled me somewhat:

In the great power struggle between government secrecy and the public’s right to know, the demise of the newspaper industry is a victory for the bad guys.

Well, of course. It’s because we let the bad guys — hi, Rupert! — buy up the entire newspaper industry.

An interesting article by Lynne Spender in Meanjin about Google’s ambitions to digitise the world’s books (probably behind the paywall):

Perhaps I am optimistic by nature, but when Google first announced that it was planning to digitise the world’s books and create the greatest library ever, I was enthusiastic. I thought it was an example of digital technology doing for our generation—and those that follow—what print technology did for the generations of readers and writers after its introduction in the fifteenth century. Just as Gutenberg’s printing press brought increased and independent access to knowledge and information 600 years ago, it seemed possible that the Google Library Project’s searchable database of the world’s books would allow access to our entire cultural heritage in digital format. It would be a new res publica litterarum for a new age of digital enlightenment.

Spender’s article focused mainly on the IP and copyright issues of digitising books, but my interest is in the fundamental issue of a for-profit company owning potentially the only digital copies of the Western literary heritage. I’ve written about this before.

To this point Google seems to have acted honourably (the “Paper of Record” issue notwithstanding), but I still fear that one day all this treasure will find itself behind a paywall. Organisations such as Project Gutenberg cannot compete with the finances of Google and will be left behind.

As an update to my earlier post, it seems that Google has finally sorted out the technical problems and most of the material that was available through “Paper of Record” is now available through the Google News Archive Search. There is an interesting overview here from Inside Higher Ed. However, there remain complaints that the search interface is not nearly as user-friendly as the original.

If there’s a stack of old newspapers gathering dust under the bed or out in the shed, Australian libraries want to know about it. The search is on for these valuable pieces of our social history, as part of the Australian Newspaper Plan, a nation-wide initiative of state and territory libraries designed to find, collect and preserve access to historic newspapers.

Some of Australia’s most wanted newspapers include:

• Cairns Advocate (1897-1882);
• Croydon Miner (1887-1888)
• Mundic Miner and Etheridge Gazette (1889-1917);
• Pilbarra Goldfields News (1901);
• Renmark Pioneer (1893-1895).

Once the wanted newspapers have been tracked down, they will be saved to ensure their preservation for future generations. Access will be available through the libraries. For a full list of the wanted newspapers, go to www.nla.gov.au/anplan

─Judith Dahl Taylor
Communications and Marketing Manager
National Library of Australia

I’ve just been reading Henry A. Giroux talking about child beauty pageants in the US and the way that they teach children to assume particular, very narrow, powerless, and sexualised identities. Giroux argues that this constitutes a form of child abuse, and frankly, I’m inclined to agree with him.

Since it was started in 1997, Google’s mantra has been “Don’t be evil”, perhaps with a sideways glance at another world-straddling software company that started out with guileless and youthful exuberance, and ended up as the evil empire. And certainly Google’s image is one of benign access, not control. We love the way they change the famous logo to celebrate holidays and significant events, and we all got nostalgic for their tenth birthday and marvelled at the clunky old designs, despite the fact that this pre-history only went back to 1995!

But I’ve been nervous about the fact that Google is buying up online archives, and embarking on their own digitisation programmes. Yes, there is a lot of stuff out there that needs to be preserved, but isn’t that the role of national libraries? I’m worried about the prospect of a private company owning so much of a nation’s heritage: even a non-evil company like Google.

Then the other day I heard about the case of a small newspaper archive site that disappeared after being vacuumed up by the Google machine:

[more]

I’m part of a research team at the moment that is looking at the transmission of values, youth, and new media, so I get to read a lot about how the young people are all on Web 2.0 and the oldies aren’t. I’ve also been spending quite a lot of time on YouTube of late – hey, it’s a tough job, but someone has to do it :-) – and finding that many of the people hanging out there aren’t really that young.

Some of my colleagues and I have been talking about these things, and in our experience the generational divide is not so clear.

An interesting piece by Margaret Simons in Inside Story where she points out the irony of the recent Walkley Awards where a significant number of awards were given to defunct publications:

Other winners included the ABC’s Radio Eye (for best broadcast feature), which will finish up this year, and illustrator Simon Bosch (best artwork) formerly of the Sydney Morning Herald, who was “let go” in the Fairfax blood-letting a few weeks ago. Among those shortlisted for awards were a Julie-Anne Davies story in the Bulletin, which no longer exists, and an article in Time, a publication that has just announced the sacking of all its Australian journalists and the probable closure of its Australian bureau.

There is something profoundly sad and profoundly disturbing about an industry giving its highest awards to outlets that no longer exist, or are in decline.

Read the full article here

I should also note that Margaret is now blogging at Crikey, and you should take a look.

I’m not normally prone to conspiracy theories, but I just can’t help but imagine that there was once a conversation on the upper floors of a certain building in George Street that went something like this:

“Anna, we’re screwed: we’ve tried everything, and we just can’t find a way to convince the public that recycled drinking water is the go.”

“Wait a minute! Let’s pretend we are going to build a dam in an important, environmentally sensitive beauty-spot. We’ll push on despite the community outrage, the blatant inappropriateness of the location, and clear illogic of the project. Then, just as it seems the dam will go ahead—we might even schedule a little preliminary bulldozing to lend it credibility—we’ll cave in on environmental concerns. The communities and lobbyists will be so relieved that they won’t even notice when the recycled water starts pouring into Wivenhoe Dam.”

“Anna, you’re a genius! I guess that’s why Pete left you in charge!”

OK, probably not.

[more]

File this one under “valuable, but under-used (or unknown) academic resources”.

The Australian Media History Database is an online resource for academics, scholars, and industry professionals in the area of media history specifically relating to Australia. As well as a portal providing information about resources for media history and relevant events, it provides an index of researchers in Australia and overseas, with details of their projects and (in most cases) contact details.

Its main purpose is to provide a mechanism by which researchers working in particular areas can get in touch with colleagues doing similar things. This is the core activity of the ARC Cultural Research Network, under whose auspices the AMHD was set up.

Listing in the AMHD is free and open to anyone working on some aspect of Australian media history. Postgraduate students and independent scholars are welcome to contribute. Click on the “Add Your Details” link. And please bring this resource to the attention of any colleagues who might not have found it already: the more it is used, the better the quality of its content.

Disclosure: I am the webmaster for the AMHD and was involved in the original design meetings.

In which I briefly rant about harmful radio ads