[中国传媒大学]22秋中传媒《网络新闻传播概》作业2

同学情

网络新闻传播概论作业2
一、更多资料下载：谋学网（www.mouxue.com）（共3题，每题10分）
1、六度分隔（Six Degrees of Separation）
2、长尾理论(Long-Tail Theory)
3、GDPR法案

二、更多资料下载：谋学网（www.mouxue.com）（共2题，每题35分）
1、1994年4月20日，中国全功能接入互联网。在过去进28年的历程中这一传播技术对新闻行业、新闻环境都产生了巨大的影响。请结合所学、查询资料，对互联网对新闻业的影响划分时间阶段，并概括各个阶段的传播特征。

2、算法正在全面渗透我们所处的信息环境。挪威媒体学者Taina Bucher梳理了媒体和时间之间关系的历史，分为广播时间、网络时间和算法时间。请阅读以下节选段落，概括中不同媒体时间的特征，然后结合自己的媒体使用经验，提出你对这一个划分的看法。（提示：言之成理即可，鼓励具有原创性的思考，杜绝抄袭和复制粘贴）
Media times
The category of time has been a major concern in a wide range of disciplines includingphysics, psychology, philosophy, theology, sociology, cultural theory, rhetoric, andmedia studies. Existing perspectives on time have either theorized time as an objectivephenomenon external to human activity or as a subjective phenomenon bound to socialnorms and individual experience. If the former sees time as quantitative, linear, andabstract, the latter is mainly concerned with time as qualitative, relative, and specific tohuman experience and action (Orlikowski and Yates, 2002: 685). This objective-subjectivedichotomy loosely corresponds to the classic Greek conception of “chronos,” or the chronological sequence of time, and “kairos,” understood as the qualitative dimension ofappropriate time. Chronos constitutes what we usually think of as time, expressed in achronological sequence and marked by a clock. Kairos, however, suggests a much morepersonal or qualitative “appropriateness” of time, a temporality marked by crucialmoments (Marramao, 2007).
Broadcast time: flow and liveness
One of the most canonical notions of media time was first developed by RaymondWilliams in the 1970s around the idea of television as flow. Williams coined the notionof “flow” to depict the way that television scheduling and audience consumption patternscreated a stream or continuous flow of programming (Williams, 2004). For Williams, flow was a key term for understanding the distinctive nature of television, a term thatcould capture what was specific about television both as a technology and a culturalform. As he wrote, “In all developed broadcasting systems the characteristic organisation,and therefore the characteristic experience, is one of sequence or flow” (Williams,2004: 86). Understood as a specific time regime particular to broadcasting, flow is notjust “objective” in the sense of being an intrinsic feature of the medium of television or“subjective” as in designating a particular viewing and reception experience but also atemporality that is linked to specific institutional practices and norms or what Williamsdescribed as “planned flow.” For Williams, flow signifies an unbroken stream of preplannedprograms and commercials designed to keep the audience fixed to the screen.
In addition to the concept of flow, the notion of “liveness” has been another definingfeature of how the temporality of television and radio has commonly been theorized. Inhis book Liveness, Philip Auslander (2008) points out how the ontology of televisionfrom the very beginning was grounded in the medium’s ability “to transmit events asthey occur, not in a filmic capacity to record events for later viewing” (p. 12). The ideaof “liveness” features strongly in another, more phenomenological sense as well. AsPaddy Scannell (2014) argues, liveness is a feeling, an experience of a shared now instigatedby the temporal regime of television. For Scannell, liveness is not some inherentproperty of technology. Liveness, according to Scannell, cannot be located in the technology as such but in what it reveals and makes us sense about the world at the sametime others do. For Scannell (2014), broadcast time is thus characterized by what heterms a “common public time” (p. 356)—the experience of shared timeframe. On mostaccounts, then, television owes its character to the temporality of “live,” to a sense ofsimultaneity, presence, and immediacy (Auslander, 2008; Scannell, 2014; Van Es, 2017).According to Jane Feuer (1983), television’s origin story as a live medium may alsoexplain why television remained a “live medium,” even long after it actually ceased to belive, at least, in the ideological sense. In the following section on the digital register, wewill see how the time of the digital in many ways follows from the temporal logic oftelevision.
Networked media time and the real-time web
Various social theorists and media scholars have noted how social changes brought aboutby increased connectivity and globalization have significantly changed the ways inwhich we perceive time. During the 1990s and early 2000s, the notion of real-timeemerged as a particularly prolific term to talk about the acceleration of everyday life andthe breaking down of traditional time-space boundaries. The notion of temporal accelerationis, perhaps, most famously captured in Paul Virilio’s (1999) assertion that the diminishingof geographical distance has given way to the “tyranny of real time” (p. 87). ForVirilio, the possibility of instantaneous information offered by new networked media isnot necessarily a good thing. Instantaneity requires decision-makers increasingly to actin real-time without little or no time to reflect. Others have similarly coined terms suchas “network time” (Hassan, 2003) and “timeless time” (Castells, 1996) to grapple withthe observed acceleration and erosion of traditional space-time boundaries introduced bynetworked media. However, there is also a more technological understanding of the termin which “real-time” is invoked as a medium-specific storage and processing capacity.German media theory, after Kittler, talks about “time-axis manipulation,” theorizing howthe technological management and manipulation of time lies at the very heart of thecomputer’s processing power (Kittler, 2017; Krämer, 2006). Yet, Esther Weltevrede et al.(2014) convincingly argue that there are limits to the explanatory power of “real-time.”Real-time should not be treated as a universal category of time. Instead, they argue, thereis a multiplicity of real-times and distinct forms of “realtimeness” that hinge not just onthe technological infrastructure but also on practices of use. Seen as “immanent to andco-constituted” by specific “device cultures,” real-time is essentially fabricated throughthe distinct ways in which different platforms “offer different paces, rhythms, and durations”(Weltevrede et al., 2014: 145).
Algorithmic media time: towards an understanding of right-time
Media technologies that fundamentally rely on algorithms to sort, filter, rank, and curatecontent are not merely operating in or producing distinct forms of realtimeness but hingeon a set of temporal relations that work to produce a particular temporal landscape characterizedby a time that is right. As Facebook’s description of the news feed as deliveringthe right content to the right people at the right-time suggests, what matters in an algorithmicmedia landscape is not necessarily to deliver content in real-time but at a particularpoint in time. In order to substantiate this claim, I draw on different data sources,including public reactions to platform changes on Twitter and Instagram, patent documentsdetailing the operational logics of Facebook features and functionalities, publiclyavailable industry speech describing the goals and intentions of platforms, as well asusers’ understanding of algorithmic systems based on previous interview studies (seeBucher, 2018). In what follows, I examine how platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, andInstagram perform “right-time” to transform the information flow and presentation ofcontent in an attempt to deliver relevance. In the way Williams sought to theorize flowas the distinctive way in which television scheduling and audience consumption patternscreate the experience of flow as television time, my endeavor is to understand the distinctivetemporal nature of algorithmic media as right-time. The argument is that algorithmic media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram organize and create a sense oftime that is not about liveness but timing, not freshness but relevance, not real-time butright-time. In order to develop the idea of “right-time” as a key temporal logic of algorithmicmedia, I examine three places in which the structuring and experience of “righttime”become available for analysis: in the controversies around platform changes, intechnical and industry descriptions of digital infrastructure, and in users’ understandingof algorithms.