Women in the workplace is a strong topic that has been in debate for many years. I am personally effected by this topic and have done much research into how I can try and succeed. The glass ceiling is real, the stereotypes are there, and the confidence is lacking.
In order to break the glass ceiling and rise to the top, we as women need to have confidence and work as hard as we can. There are women out there who took the opportunity to create their own businesses. I believe this is a brilliant idea.
When others won't help, just do it yourself!
Below is a Storify element that I made which touches on different thoughts, opinions, and conversations regarding women in the workplace.
Enjoy!
https://storify.com/shannmedia/who-is-the-breadwinner
Thursday 11 July 2013
Monday 8 July 2013
Unpredictable
Do you
trust someone on Twitter for accurate information? For me I can go either way.
Hearing from the public will bring up many questions of reliability and
accuracy. As you mentioned in your comment it is more interesting to read a
citizen journal than the traditional news. I agree with this and I believe it
is mainly because it is informal and not lengthy. Not many people are
interested in reading a 1000 worded news report; they just want to know exactly
what is going on in 100 words or less.
CP24
is great for this on Twitter. They do have their traditional reports which are
on their website, but they post a very short and to the point post on Twitter.
What I find really helpful is that they attach the link to the report they have
on their site. This enables the follower to read more into the bulletin if they
are interested in the details. Getting more information can be important,
especially if it affects you personally. A few days ago there was a Twitter
post on CP24 about a fire burning down houses, and it just so happened this was
only a couple blocks away from me. I then proceeded to read the detailed report
to find out who was involved and what exactly happened.
I
continue to believe CP24 is a great example of how Twitter is effective aside
from linking to external sites. They also promote users to have conversation on
certain topics. A great example is tonight with the big flooding in Toronto. On
the news they are saying if you want to tweet them, post pictures, or ask questions,
to hashtag them at #TorontoFlood. This creates a wall of conversation on what
is happening and the different situations people are in.
Citizen
journalism is being promoted on our most trusted sites and TV networks. What
will this do to the traditional journalism? Why buy a newspaper when you have a
week’s worth of papers on your phone for free? I feel that the traditional way
will fizzle out but those journalists will find a way to get into our
technology focused society eventually.
Thursday 4 July 2013
Not Complete
The primary function of citizen
journalism is to get information out to the rest of the public as quickly and
accurately as possible. This is the act of collecting, analyzing and publishing
information and facts, breaking news, and up-dates. It is basically what a
journalist does except it is the general public’s input. This does cause an
issue for the traditional journalist because they have to compete with the
speed of a citizen journalist. In a breaking news event the news company “may
still be scrambling to get their reporters to the scene and find footage of the
events”[1] where an
onsite individual may be recording and publishing what is going on from the
instant it happened. These days the way
people are getting ‘the word’ out is through a website called Twitter. This
site is open to anyone and is used to display statuses, updates and sometimes
pictures.
Twitter is a great way to get fast
information and even connections to similar topics. When using this site there
is something called a hashtag, which will “enable public conversations by
large groups of Twitter users without each participating user needing to
subscribe to the update feeds of all other participants”[2].
Whether it is current news or if it is just general conversation on the topic,
an individual can follow it by using the hashtag. This just increases the speed
to which individuals get information and updates and functions “as an
early warning detection system for breaking news and then delivering a stream
of real-time data as events unfold”[3]. Twitter enables the citizen
journalist to be collective and current. Having all of the public’s input will
allow for all points of view and to hear any arguments or thoughts on the
topic.
I personally have a
twitter account which I use when I have something I want to share. There are a
fair number of people that I follow on Twitter who are constantly updating and
announcing recent events. Most of my posts are personal thoughts and feelings
about something, but nothing that really effects anyone else. This means I am
not a citizen journalist because I am not analyzing and collecting news or main
events that affect everyone. I do follow
individuals and organizations that continuously keep me up to date, example:
CP24, Sportsnet 590, and the Weather Network. Their posts benefit me because it
allows me to stay current and to know what is going on in areas I wouldn’t otherwise
hear about.
“The emergence of Twitter as a
source for breaking news, and the speed at which information is disseminated on
the network, is placing further strain on established journalistic practices”[4]. The
validity and professionalism on Twitter is questionable,
because that isn’t the point of it. The posts on Twitter are not meant to be
professionally written, they are just meant to be quick posts to get other
people ‘in the loop’. It is very easy to post and be heard on Twitter because
of the “underlying
social, organizational, and technological structures [that] make it
exceptionally easy for users to participate in such ambient journalism
processes”[5].
Having this access allows for frequent, current, collaborative posts that open
up the news to a wider perspective.
Overall,
I believe the ease of access to Twitter and the posting of news, events, and
any other public matter means that online citizen journalism will continue to
grow. I don’t believe I will truly be a part of this environment because I
don’t have the time to continuously update my Twitter. I will continue to
follow those who do make these posts and every now and then comment. But I do
not believe I could ever be a true citizen journalist. I don’t believe that the
citizen journalist is taken seriously enough for me to want to become more
involved. In my view, a citizen journalist using Twitter serves an important
function; something like an alarm bell. However, once I have been alerted to a
situation I will tune into a traditional source of journalism to receive a full
and accurate account of what is happening or what has happen.
Thursday 27 June 2013
Women vs. Men
My podcast today is based upon an article I found by Deborah Gillis called "More Women in the Workplace is Good for Business".
The reason I chose this article was because I felt she made some really good points on how women in the workplace is currently viewed. She backed up her arguments with statistics and gave many examples.
I really felt this was a very well written article that is beneficial to read and I knew this was the article I wanted to discuss.
The reason I chose this article was because I felt she made some really good points on how women in the workplace is currently viewed. She backed up her arguments with statistics and gave many examples.
I really felt this was a very well written article that is beneficial to read and I knew this was the article I wanted to discuss.
Monday 24 June 2013
Direct Connection
Personally I have never heard an artist say that their purpose is to
make money. They always refer to themselves as an “artist”. Obviously there will always be those who’s
primary goal is to seek financial reward but most artists will tell you that
this is secondary to their need for artist expression. Most start out to simply
entertain or communicate a message. For every music superstar there are
probably a thousand other musicians and singers who are happy if they can make
enough to pay their rent. One of you mentioned that if people aren’t paying for
the music that artist will lose their motivation to create. If this were true,
don’t you think we would have seen this already? Anyone who has been successful
in the music industry has started by making nothing for their craft. In
addition they never had any guarantee that they would ever make anything; they
simply wanted to create or play music. Artists should be making music because
they are passionate about it and want to entertain or communicate a message.
Would you want to listen to someone who just threw something together hoping to
make a profit instead of caring how it sounds? I think they call that “techno”
and it is little more than computer generated sound overlaying a monotonous
beat.
Artists nowadays have to realize that the internet is the strongest
and quickest way to reach their intended audience. The advent of the internet
has virtually removed all barriers that used to exist for a new artist to reach
an audience. From the sounds of it you seem to believe that the balance will be
realized through direct distribution. I also believe this to be mostly true and
that it might be the only way to make everyone happier (for the most part).
It was mentioned that the distributors are protectors of artist
rights. But are they really protecting the artist, or just themselves; their
right to turn a profit? I feel that, if anything, they are thinking about how much
money they stand to lose. The fact is that the artist can reach their audience
without them and they can do it faster. The faster they reach an audience the
faster it grows. This will mean the tours, concerts, and many other things the
artist will be a part of, will have that much more of an audience. If fans are
required to purchase a CD before they can actually listen to the songs, it
would probably take longer to build a following. Potential fans may never be
reached.
Rebuilding consumer appreciation
probably would help the artist to get more people to purchase their music,
you’re right. If this is the case, what should artists do? Implement more meet
& greets, more contests, tours, and specials. Would any of these work? If
there is a motive created for the consumer to buy the product, then sales would
increase. The artist is the one who would have the most impact on creating
motive, so if they really want consumers to pay then they need to find ways to
reach out.
The buyer wants to know their
money is going to the right place and that they are appreciated for their
purchase. If the artist doesn’t recognize the people actually buying the music,
then why bother paying. The other thing that needs to be recognized is that
there is very little enforcement of existing piracy laws. The benefits of
piracy quite simply outweigh the consequences. As a result, people will
continue to download “illegally”. The answer won’t be found in more
unenforceable copyright laws. The answer can only be found in a strong and more
direct connection between the artist and their fans.
Thursday 20 June 2013
Lawful or Unlawful?
Piracy is the unauthorized reproduction,
distribution, and selling of something that has copyrights attached. This occurs
increasingly more frequently with music, movies, and TV shows as technology
makes these artist creations more general accessible. This also creates a
problem for distributors; the middle man. The dramatic increase in direct
downloads have in effect out the middle man and along with them their profits. With
respect to piracy, it is the creator and/or distributor that are being victimized.
In response they push for increased or new copyright protection. However,
technology continues to evolve and along with it new means of circumventing
copyright protections. It is becoming more difficult to strike an appropriate
balance between the consumer and the distributor. Essentially the consumer is
trying to minimize or even eliminate cost while the distributors are trying to
maximize profit. Basically, distribution is “to supply revenues to
administrative organizations and intermediaries with little or no creative
function”.[1]
This in itself is nothing new to free markets. However, with most commodities
theft of the product is easier to define and just as easy to detect. How can an
effective and fair balance be found or will one of the players have to
compromise?
The fact that consumers don’t pay
for the music they download, doesn’t mean that they are trying to steal from
the artist. It just means that they don’t feel the need to pay the distributor.
There are times when the consumer will pay for a creation regardless of price, because
they are supporting a friend or a local artist. However, most of the time
consumers make every effort to avoid paying for a variety of reasons. These
include; they’ve paid too much in the past, it is overpriced, the artist is
rich, or they don’t know where their money is actually going. It is like a
charity in that sense. Someone might not donate because they have heard the
money doesn’t actually go towards the charity. Another argument is that free
downloads are free promotion for that distributor. Who would want to turn down
free promotion? Nowadays distribution is driven by
“word-of-mouth discussions, friend-to-friend sharing, and convenience in
accessing [the] music”.[2]
“If
music is free, no one will pay for it. If no one pays, artists and producers
will stop creating music,”[3]
which will lead to many distributors going out of business. In my opinion, this
is primary reason for copyrights laws. If there is no profit only the consumer
wins. The distributor is out of business and the creator has no motivation
beyond artistic expression. The world is driven by market demand, so why does
it seem different in this case? Because it would be FREE! The demand is for
free music, even though this might not directly benefit the artist involved. That
being said, the artist that creates something that is truly in demand will have
other very lucrative ways of generating income such as concerts, tours, meet
and greets, autographs, commercials and endorsements. Really when it comes down
to it “music lovers end up buying music”.[4]
According
to studies it would take “5,000 downloads to displace one sale”[5],
which is using their most pessimistic view. So I don’t understand why there is
such emphasis on getting people to pay $3+ for a song. Should we really be paying
for each song? When we really want to support the artist we will. I don’t
believe we should be forced into it; it should be voluntary. The impact on the
artist can be mitigated and as for the distributor, perhaps they no longer have
a meaningful role to play in the world of artist creations. In the end, maybe
the solution is to cut out the middle man (the distributor) and have the artist
post their songs and books. They can give them away or charge whatever they
want. Ultimately, their resulting popularity will determine things like income
and fame. “In situations where the connection between artists and fans is
viewed as more direct, people will buy.”6 The rest still have the best medium ever
created for artist expression on a global stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)