There has been a lot of discussion on the Internet the last few months in regards to what Apple is going to do with the seemingly out-dated Final Cut Studio package. Lots of people have written blog articles about what features they would like to see in the new versions of Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Color, etc. The general consensus from the Internet community seems to be that Final Cut Studio is due for a very major update, or even a complete overhaul. Conversations about this are appearing wide-spread on podcasts, twitter, forums and through all the major social networks.

Some people are predicating the death of DVD Studio Pro, others are predicting that Blu-ray burning will finally become available. With Apple filing for new patents, some are predicting that Final Cut Studio will introduce some cool new storyboarding features.

People are hoping for better round-tripping support, better media management, unified solid state camera support, major bug-fixes in Color, 10-bit and 4K support, GPU Acceleration, true 3D in Motion, features from Adobe Premiere (such as searchable text), features from Avid (such as script sync), features from iMovie (such as an updated trim editor), background rendering, Spotlight support inside Final Cut… the list goes on, and on!

Regardless of what new and amazing features end up in Final Cut Studio 3, everyone wants to get their hands on it quick smart! Most people seem to think that Apple will showcase their new product somewhere between now and NAB (even though Apple have dropped out of NAB for the foreseeable future).

So, given all this, what are our predictions?

Well, we think sometime this year Apple will release Final Cut Extreme – a complete overhaul of the Final Cut Studio package.

The name Final Cut Extreme has been around since the lead-up to NAB 2006, after ThinkSecret, writing for PCMagazine, claimed to have additional details about Final Cut Pro 6, Final Cut Extreme, and long-rumoured display upgrades. Final Cut Extreme was said to enable the most demanding users to edit uncompressed 4K and 2540p video. Compatibility was said to include Red Digital Cinema’s Red, Panavision Genesis, Dalsa Origin, Thompson Viper, Sony Cinealta, Phantom HD, and Arri D20 cameras. After this article was released, the online film community went crazy, with heaps of blog posts being written adding to the hype. Unfortunately, the rumours were false, an no Final Cut Extreme was released at NAB 2006. However, in the lead-up to NAB 2007, everything started again. There was the occasional sensible article being written, but most of it was just hype and strong wishing.

However, we don’t think Final Cut Extreme will be designed for the extreme high-end market – we just think that they’ll rename the existing Final Cut Studio package to Final Cut Extreme and keep a similar pricing. It will still be marketed towards their current broad audience – but we also predict, that with a massive new collection of features and simplified workflows, that a lot of the high-end boys and girls will jump on board.

So what will make this new FCX so different? Well, it’s our prediction that most of the Final Cut Studio (i.e. Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Color, LiveType, etc.) will be merged into the one application. We predict a MASSIVE interface and workflow overhaul. No longer will you need to Send to Soundtrack Pro, or use XML workarounds to get your timeline into Color. Everything will be in the one “box”. In typical Apple style – we predict they’ll make things better, by making them substantially simpler.

So how the hell will this actually work? We believe the key is a new Universal Timeline and a set of different Rooms.

The Project Room will be the “hub” of your project. Taking media management to a new extreme, this will be were you can manage different versions of your project, keep track of scripts, storyboards, and other pre-production information. Taking on board features find in other packages such as Celtx, we predict that FCX will have a big focus on ALL stages of the film-making process, including Pre-Production.

User Management will be dramatically improved in FCX. Much like in Avid, you will be able to easily create and switch between user profiles when the application first loads, and also any time whilst you have the application running. You can easily customise the FCX interface to suit your own needs. Currently, managing user customisations in Final Cut Pro is a joke. Multiple users working on the same project will also be supported. Changes will be tracked and logged.

We predict that as an extension to their current MobileMe platform, they will release MobileMe Pro, which will easily allow you to share pre-production documents such as scripts and call sheets, as well as offer everything that Final Cut Server currently has to offer. You’ll be able to easily export rough cuts out of FCX, that will automatically be uploaded to the MobileMe platform, and then producers can access these videos on their iPhone.

The whole selling point of FCX will be making life quicker and easier. In typical Apple style – they’ll take features only found on extremely expensive and high-end products, and make them cool and pretty for trendy Apple users. The integration between FCX, the Internet, AppleTV and iPhones will be extremely important to the success of the product.

Project Files will also be quite different to the way they are currently handled in Final Cut. They will be an archive file, which when opened will contain a logical folder structure containing any pre-production information, scripts, etc. Each bin in the Edit Room will be an individual file (much the same as Avid), allowing you to easily copy and paste individual bins if need be.

The Media Room, will be a beefed up version of a mix between the Media Manager in Final Cut, and Final Cut Server. This will be were you keep track of all your video, audio, graphics and other assets. When you create a new Project, you will be asked to select a Media Collection. This will be the equivalent of your Capture Scratch, Thumbnail Cache, etc. In this file (which will be an archive, so you can right click on it and “view archive contents) will be ALL the assets for your project, all nicely organised in a logical folder structure. Each project will have it’s own Media Collection (similar to Avid’s way to dealing with things). If you delete a file from the collection on the Finder level, these changes are automatically detected by FCX (just like in Avid). You can have multiple version of the same file (ie. you might have a couple different versions of a musical score) – and this is all handled by FCX. One of the coolest features will be a video Face Recognition function, much the same as the one found in iMovie. Video clips will also be scanned, and using a new Speech-to-Text engine automatic transcripts will be written (just like in the new version of Premiere).

Unfortunately, we still predict that FCX will be heavily based around the Quicktime Architecture, meaning that you’ll still probably have to wrap R3D files into Quicktime files. However, this process will be all done in the background. For example, if you drag a MXF file into the timeline, this file is automatically copied, logged and transcoded or wrapped to the Media Collection in the background. You can still do other things while FCX is adding new media (similar to the way Final Cut Pro handles it’s new stabilisation features).

CinemaTools will also be integrated into the Media Room – allowing you to easily go from a ProRes offline, to a 35mm release print.

The Cutting Room, will be the Final Cut Pro replacement. Although Final Cut has come a very long way since it was shown in private room demonstrations as a 0.9 alpha at the National Association of Broadcasters exposition in 1998, it’s still not as “Apple” as it could be. Apple products are known for their slick interfaces, and features that “just work” – and although Final Cut is one of the more beautiful interfaces on the market, it’s still got nothing on the really cheap and friendly little brother, iMovie. It’s our prediction that the Cutting Room will have all the fantastic features of the current Final Cut Pro, but with some very major improvements.

The biggest and most important difference will be the Universal Timeline. This timeline will be common across all rooms. It will be very similar to the current timeline, except more powerful. Just imagine if you merged the Final Cut, After Effects, Motion and Soundtrack Pro timelines together. Audio will be vastly improved on the timeline – as you’ll be allowed to perform surround panning, etc. You’ll be able to group tracks, as well as label, colour code them, and even give them a thumbnail icon.

Although the interface will look much sexier, and modern – everything will function in a similar way to the current Final Cut Pro. Basically, if you can easily find your way around the current Final Cut application – this change over will be a non-issue. The biggest changes will be an improved Trim Tool and vastly improved Effects Engine.

After you’ve cut together your masterpiece, you can then jump over to the Audio Room. After you’ve clicked the Audio Room tab, your timeline stays the same, but the workarea section of the application changes. Building upon the features of both Logic and Soundtrack Pro, this is were you do all your audio mastering. Any simple audio effects you applied in the Cutting Room automatically transfer over to the Audio Room. There is a powerful real-time audio mixer (with all the automated faders and knobs you can handle), support of virtual instruments, plus all the plug-ins you’ve come to expect from Logic and STP. Plugins that work in Logic, also work in FCX. The sound effects library will no doubt be HUGE – and easily searchable via the Media Room.

Next is the Effects Room. After Apple announced the end of Shake, everyone has been eagily waiting for Apple to release the code-named Phenomenon replacement. However, this, so far, has never come about. That said, a lot of the amazing features of Shake have been included in Final Cut, Motion and even iMovie. We believe that the Effects Room will be the Shake replacement. We think that it will utilise a mixture of using the Universal Timeline – but also nodes (like in Shake). You’ll be able to do everything you can currently do in Motion and LiveType – plus utilise all the plugins that Shake has to offer, but the feature set will also be expanded upon. True 3D will be integrated into the package. Using the Media Room, you’ll also easily be able to import effects shots from other packages such as After Effects, and Nuke. The current Final Cut Studio has been very much designed to keep everything in the one package. Getting from Final Cut to After Effects is not a trivial task. However – in FCX, we predict that this will change. Just like MacOS can easily open and manage PDFs, we predict that Apple will try and make everything easier and simplier. Advanced 2D and 3D Trackers, powerful roto tools, etc. will all be stock standard. Masks that are created in the Cutting Room (which you can do using the new and improved pen tool) are automatically available in the Effects Room. Obviously, there will be heaps of amazing templates and “one click” options – all available via the Media Room.

The Grading Room will be the place to go for your final colour correction. Much as the same as the Audio Room, any colour correction effects you apply to clips in the Cutting Room will automatically be transferred over to the Grading Room. Based on Color, but with some added functionality from the Shake feature-set, this is were you can do all your grading. Tracking Data and Masks created in the Effects Room (or even the Cutting Room) are all available in the Grading Room.

Finally, you have the Finishing Room. This is the were you can export your timeline, clips, effects shots, etc. to web, DVD, AppleTV, iPod, etc. Taking on all the functionality of DVD Studio Pro and iDVD, plus all the power of Compressor – you can export things with one click, or customise the settings to the finest degree. Unfortunately, I suspect BluRay is dead – at least from Apple’s point of view (being a “bad of hurt” and all that!). In this room you’ll also be able to export to tape via a much improved and powerful interface.

Of course, all of this is great – but we predict that the biggest changes and improvements will be behind the scenes. There will be a change over from the 32-bit Carbon backbone to the 64-bit Cocoa. Everything will be GPU Accelerated. New low bit-rate versions of ProRes will be released. Less things will need rendering (for example, no more rendering if you simply “flip” an clip), and there will be better rendering management (i.e. if you drag a clip over the top of another clip, causing it to need to render, if you drag that clip away again, the old render files will be referenced – no need to re-render). There will be full meta-data support and Spotlight integration. You will be able to have multiple instances of FCX running – as you won’t be able to load multiple projects in the same application like you currently can. Every room will support distributed/cluster rendering as well as background rendering (this includes all plugins). Up to 4:4:4 4K will be supported, plus there will be better support for proxy files. It’s our prediction that FCX will be almost written from the ground up – so the code will be a lot cleaner and more streamlined, making everything more zippy!

There will also be heaps of little extra bug fixes and improvements, such as improved speed tools in the Cutting Room, better cutting and pasting of parameters, better and more interactive bins (you’ll be able to make your clips any size, and re-arrange them any way you want). The ability to “click and drag” to enable/disable or lock/unlock tracks, or check/uncheck filters (like various Adobe applications). One of the biggest improvements will be better error explanation (i.e. instead of “General Error”, FCX will explain exactly what went wrong and suggest ways of fixing it).

Cool new features will include a full screen bin browser (much like iMovie), new Titles, Transitions and Effects, Animated Travel Maps (available in the Effects Room – taken from iMovie), Advanced Particle Effects, Snap to Beat Markers (like iMovie), Multi-Touch Support (for laptop users), etc.

Customisation will also be a key. You’ll be able to design your own tool plugins for the Universal Timeline, which can be bought and sold as an application on the iTunes stores. If you open a project that has a whole lot of plugins you don’t have, then you’ll be given an option to download any of the free ones, or purchase any that aren’t free.

It’s our belief that FCX will focus on tying the professional application in with the rest of the Apple family of products. FCX will play nicely with the Xsan, Xserve, AppleTV, iPhone and iPod. It will have great connectivity with their new online “cloud”.

Finally – we have a hunch that Apple will release several hardware addons to FCX. This will speed up renders, and transcodes dramatically. But what makes this hardware so special, is that it’s design and source-code will be released as open source allowing 3rd party developers to take on board this technology. Companies like Blackmagic Design will be able to implement this technology in their own capture cards. They will also release a FCX control surface, that allows you to easily control all the various rooms in the application.

So, when do we predict this will be released? We have a hunch that Apple will release a minor update to Final Cut Studio within the next couple of months (fixing some of the bugs and adding some new codecs), but will release FCX towards the end of this year along with a new range of MacPro towers. At first, users will be extremely annoyed with Apple for completely re-designing the Final Cut workflow – but soon enough, people will start to realise just how powerful the new application is. As a result, Avid will dramatically reduce their pricing further, and start to offer Media Composer and ProTools as a single package.

We predict that the package will be AUD$1000.00, and you will not be able to upgrade to it from Final Cut Studio 2.

Will we be right? Only time will tell! Like most people, we do honestly believe that Apple is due for a major update – especially after we’ve just started using Avid for a couple of projects, and have realised just how fantastic the backbone behind Avid is (just the way it handles user profiles and project files is great). But we have “grown up” with Final Cut (in fact, that only reason we went to Apple was due to it!), so we do really want to support it. It will certainly be interesting to see what actually happens in the next few months (especially considering the state of the world’s finances). I don’t know how many people in the world are quite ready to spend a lot of money on new software…

Feel free to send us any comments about our predictions! We’d be really interested to hear what you have to say! But keep in mind, that all of this is just a big GUESS – we don’t have any insider information, nor do we have any connection to anyone at Apple. But after having a good look at Apple’s track record, we think that this is something that has a huge amount of possibility. As we said – only time will tell…

Best Regards, Chris!

The government’s been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the forties. They’ve infected everything. They get into your bank statements, computer files, e-mail, listen to your phone calls…. Every wire, every airwave. The more technology used, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you. It’s a brave new world out there. At least it better be…

Brill from the film “Enemy of the State” (Touchstone Pictures 1998)

In Tony Scott’s 1998 blockbuster, “Enemy of the State”, a successful Washington DC lawyer is hunted down by a government intelligence group, after he is inadvertently given a video tape revealing the murder of a congressman. As he attempts to gather the facts with the intention to release them to the public’s eye, the full weight of the government’s surveillance equipment is swung into action – everything from coin size bugging devices and telephone location tracing to real-time satellite surveillance. The lawyer’s bank details, phone records and other extremely personal details are brought up and manipulated with ease by the government using their extensive computer networks (Touchstone Pictures 1998). Although at the time of the movies release the majority of the technology displayed in this film appeared far fetched and extremely unlikely. Step forward seven years and most, if not all of the equipment, suddenly seems all the more plausible.

Global Positioning Systems, or GPS as it is more commonly referred to, is one such technology that transforms science fiction into reality. It is a satellite-based navigation system, made up of 24 satellites placed into orbit by the United State Department of Defence, making it possible for people back on earth to pinpoint their geographic location using a receiver unit (Garmin 2000, p. 1). At the time of the films release technologies such as GPS did exist, however, unlike the equipment portrayed in the movie the accuracy of these devices was far from perfect. However, in more recent times, by using more advanced technologies such as Carrier-Phase Enhancement (CPGPS), the accuracy of GPS device has increased to within twenty to thirty centimetres (Wikipedia 2006). Even more astonishingly, some Differential GPS (DGPS) systems claim to be accurate to around one centimetre (Wikipedia 2006). It would seem that Hollywood has once again made some very accurate speculations of what the future would hold.

One of the key factors for the success of “Enemy of the State” was that it highlighted the potential for governments to invade the privacy of its citizens. Audiences worldwide were terrified of the possibility that intelligence organisations such as the National Security Agency had the potential to record their phone calls and track their movements even though most considered the technology to be quite some time away. Several years have passed since the films release, and now GPS is increasingly being adopted by private and public sectors to track and monitor humans for Location Based Services (LBS) (Wikipedia 2006). For example, current applications include locators for children, the elderly or those suffering from severe memory loss, and the monitoring of individuals for law enforcement, security or personal protection purposes (Dempsey 2001). The constant miniaturisation of GPS technology means that receivers can now take the form of wristwatches and be placed inside mobile phones and jewellery, all with the ability to pinpoint the exact longitude and latitude of a subject, twenty four hours a day – seven days a week. The purpose of this essay is to consider and explore the issues of mobile privacy that are raised in relation to Global Positioning Systems, and to analyse the emerging ethical concerns facing current and future GPS applications. Specific focus will be directed towards surveillance and identity, as most citizens in Australia believe they should have the right to remain anonymous if they so wish.

Although the technology behind GPS is quite complex, the theory behind how the system functions is relatively straightforward. GPS satellites circle the earth twice a day, travelling in a very strict orbit and constantly transmit signal information back towards the earth. Receiver units take this information and use triangulation to calculate the user’s exact location. Essentially, the GPS receiver compares the time a signal was transmitted by a satellite with the time it was received. This difference in time is then used to calculate how far away the satellite is. The receiver must be locked on to at least three satellite signals in order to calculate the 2D position – that is, the longitude and latitude. If the receiver is able to obtain the signal from four or more satellites, it can then determine the user’s 3D position: longitude, latitude and now altitude. With this continuously updated data, software within the device can then plot a user’s position against map information, and calculate other details such as speed, trip distance, distance to destination and other useful information (Garmin 2000, p. 1-16). Although GPS is fundamentally a passive mechanism, in that it does not inherently transmit location information to any other device, it can be combined with transmitters and transponders allowing the data to be transmitted to another party – hence the potential danger (Clarke 2000).

The benefits of the technology are quite obvious – people now no longer have any excuse for getting lost. Another useful example is of that of “Enhanced-911″ in the United States. Prior to 2001, if you called 911 on a mobile phone but were unable to talk, or the signal dropped out before you could alert the operator of your location, emergency services had no way of determining where you are. This could potentially result in a loss of human life. However, with the development of Enhanced-911, emergency services can now determine the geographic location of the caller instantly to within fifty metres (Allen 2006). Although no one can object to the fact that it is a truly incredible life-saving tool, with it comes several potential issues. The implementation of the system has, and continues to cost mobile telephone companies millions of dollars, as they are required to update their infrastructure and their client’s phones to comply with FCC regulations (Said & Kirby 2006). Because of this, one of the ways these telecommunications companies can recover their losses is by partnering with organisations that offer location-based services allowing vendors, for example, to send messages to their customers when they are in the vicinity alerting them to discounts or reminding them that their current hire is overdue. The hope is that customers will appreciate receiving information that is specially customised to their location and interests; however, there is the threat that this new technology will create with it a bombardment of mobile phone spam and much more significantly and dangerously, jeopardize phone customers’ privacy (Said & Kirby 2006).

The theory behind Location-based Commerce, as it is known, is that as one goes about their everyday business, their mobile phone will provide them with useful information, based on their current location (Said & Kirby 2006). Another example is that a theatre might transmit a message to any previous customers nearby alerting them that as their upcoming performance has unsold seats, they are offering a substantial discount on their sale. In principle, this system is very handy, as it helps both the business who may sell more tickets, and the customer who may not have known that the show was on. However in practise, imagine if you were walking through a shopping complex and every individual store that you have purchased from in the past suddenly started to send you messages? Although government organisations such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority attempt to prohibit unsolicited messages and advertising, and customers should, in theory, have complete control over who can send them messages, in reality due to the nature of the technology, this is very hard to manage. Anyone can purchase an almost untraceable pre-paid phone and send junk mail to whomever they please. However, this is hardly the major concern. In the United States, because all mobile phone must support Enhanced-911, that means every phone must have the ability to receive GPS information, which as a result means that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the ability, after receiving a court order, to determine your exact location at any time (Allen 2000). It should be noted that it is extremely difficult for the FBI to actually gain the court order, and they have been rejected in the past (Chestnutt 2006), however, there are loopholes which law enforcement agencies (and their friends in government agencies) have been known to use and abuse (Clarke 2000), making the Enemy of the State plot seem so much more conceivable. The simple fact remains that if the government wanted to spy on you in the United States – the technology exists for them to do so. Luckily for Australians, an Enhanced-000 service currently does not exist, meaning that it is not a requirement for all mobile phones to contain a GPS device. However, emergency services can still determine your approximate location to within 50 to 500 metres by determining how far away you are from phone communication towers (ACMI 2006).

But it is not just the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is making use of GPS technology. In July of 2003, Robert Moran, a lawyer with supposed links to the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club and suspected of selling illegal drugs, had a GPS tracing device placed on his car by the New York State Police (McCullagh 2005). The police made the decision to utilise GPS technologies as opposed to more traditional means (like undercover officers), as they believed this was the only way to gain access into the tremendously cautious organisation. The police monitored Moran’s travels from a distance, and eventually arrested him on drug charges a month later (McCullagh 2005). But the most interesting aspect of this particular case is that a federal judge ruled that the police did not need court authorisation for the GPS tracking to take place. United States District Judge David Hurt stated that “law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it travelled on the public highways” and therefore “Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway” (McCullagh 2005). Although Moran was eventually found guilty on charges of conspiracy and drug trafficking, the important thing to keep in mind is that the police were allowed and are still allowed to track anyone they suspect has committed a crime, even if there is no substantial evidence to back the claim (Bray 2005). Do the police have the right to put someone under GPS surveillance without visiting a judge? According to US Attorney David Grable, yes “since it’s not a search, you don’t need any justification to use any one of these devices” (Bray 2005). However, should they have the right, is a completely different question. Australia is no different to the United States, except as there is a smaller percentage of police per citizen, there are fewer resources to devote to tracking people without ample evidence, therefore there is less potential for GPS tracking to take place – however, the possibility is still there (A.I.C 2006). For example, seven years after MP John Newman was murdered in 1994, the police used mobile phone records to determine that Phuong Ngo, a former Fairfield local councillor and suspect, was in the vicinity of the murder, and also, later that night, near the location where the murder weapon was found (The World Today 2001). Not all people agree with using this kind of technology. In 2004, Nassau County Court Judge Joseph Calabrese stated that “at this time, more than ever, individuals must be given the constitutional protections necessary to their continued unfettered freedom from a ‘big brother’ society” (New York Daily News 2005).

But it’s not just the government and law enforcements that have their eye on GPS: companies are using it to spy on their workers; wives are using it to keep tabs of their husbands, mothers of their children. GPS devices are being built into more and more automobiles and are being embedded into mobile phones (Bray 2005). At the end of the day however, the more people that utilise GPS technology, the easy it is for authorities to keep track of everyone. In theory a database could be set up maintaining a list of where everyone is or was at any given time. Enemy of the State could become reality. And as long as those cars or phones are on public roads, the users have no right to object (Bray 2005). However, what the courts failed to consider in the US, is that tracking people via GPS is very different from keeping tabs of them on foot or by vehicle. Before GPS existed, the limited budgets and the lack of man power restricted officers from following anyone they please. But with a cheap and widespread technology like GPS the temptation to engage in casual surveillance may become irresistible (Bray 2005). Although there are obviously benefits to GPS technology the potential for unethical surveillance and monitoring are too great to ignore. With information comes power – and with GPS devices widely spread throughout society, anyone that has access to this data holds the upper hand. Allowing the FBI (or their international equivalent) to have access to this information is scary enough – but what if there systems become compromised and a criminal gains access? Or what if the government officials are corrupt? Sure there are monitors in place, but as Carla Dean states in Enemy of the State, “who’s gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors” (Touchstone Pictures 1998)…

References:

• A.I.C 2006, Sworn police officers in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi116.html
• ACMA 2006, Mobile Originating Location Information, Australian Communications and Media Authority, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.131352:STANDARD:1884699275:pc=PC_7251
• Adomatis, D 2006, Using the GPS for People Tracking, Turner Endeavors, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.travelbygps.com/articles/tracking.php
• Allen, G 2006, Wireless 911 Information, DISPATCH Monthly Magazine, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.911dispatch.com/911/wireless911.html
• Allen, G, 2000, The Wireless 911 Web, Allen Media, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.911dispatch.com/911/wireless_911web.html
• Bray, H 2005, GPS Spying May Prove Irresistible to Police, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/01/17/gps_spying_may_prove_irresistible_to_police?mode=PF
• Chestnutt, A 2006, Cell Phone GPS Tracking – Privacy Issues, EzineArticles, viewed 20 September 2006, http://ezinearticles.com/?Cell-Phone-GPS-Tracking—Privacy-Issues&id=159255
• Clarke, R 2000, Person-Location and Person-Tracking: Technologies, Risks and Policy Implications, Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/PLT.html
• Clarke, R 2001, While You Were Sleeping… Surveillance Technologies Arrived, Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/AQ2001.html
• Clarke, R 2006, Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Intro.html
• Dempsey, C 2001, Uses for GPS, GIS Lounge, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.gislounge.com/features/aa050901a.shtml
• Garmin Corporation 2000, GPS Guide for Beginners, Garmin International, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.garmin.com/manuals/GPSGuideforBeginners_Manual.pdf
• McCullagh, D 2005, Snooping by Satellite, CNET Networks, viewed 20 September 2006, http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5533560.html?tag=st.util.print
• New York Daily News 2005, Federal judge’s ruling on use of GPS worries privacy advocates, Infowars.com, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/ruling_on_gps_worries_privacy_advocates.htm
• Roy Morgan Research 2004, Community Attitudes Towards Privacy 2004, The Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/rcommunity/index.html
• Said, C & Kirby, C 2001, GPS Cell Phones May Cost Privacy, San Francisco Chronicle, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/19/BU155366.DTL&type=tech_article
• Scott, T 1998, Enemy of the State, DVD, Touchstone Pictures, USA.
• The World Today 2001, NSW MP’s Killer Sentenced, Australian Broadcasting Commision, viewed 20 September 2006, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s416677.htm
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Global Positioning System, Wikipedia, viewed 20 September 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&oldid=76694515
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Location-based Service, Wikipedia, viewed 20 September 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Location-based_service&oldid=76720378

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to explain the philosophy behind Open Source. It will first examine the definition of the term, then reveal its history, and finally, explore how the philosophy is affecting all areas of society – not just the information technology world. At the end of this document is a bibliography, allowing you to continue to research this fascinating, and increasing more significant topic, if you wish.

So, what exactly is Open Source?

Although, as suggested in the introduction, open source philosophies can be applied to all areas of society, when first learning about this topic it is probably easiest to think about it in terms of computer software. Chances are – although in the future this may no longer be the case – you are viewing this website using a personal computer running an operating system such as Microsoft’s Windows or Apple’s Mac OS. Both are examples of proprietary systems. By proprietary, I mean to say that all the code hidden behind the software (the ones and zeros) are not accessible by people outside of the company that owns it. For most major commercial companies (such as Adobe and Sony), their software’s source code is considered to be a trade secret, and access to this code by third parties would normally mean that one would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement and other legally binding papers (Source: Wikipedia 2006). So, simply put, your average computer programmer simply does not have the ability to modify propriety software in its entirety without permission from the owner.

For example, Microsoft does not allow anyone to view the guts of its Windows operating system, but instead gives programmers the ability to use API calls that allowing them to access specific portions of the proprietary code and make use of them; however no modification can take place (Source: Moylan 2006). This means that a programmer can get the job done and Microsoft continues to have complete control over their creation. On the face of it, everyone wins. However it does limit the programmer’s creativity, and makes his or her life a lot harder.

Open Source software on the other hand, upholds the belief that the source code of software should be available to anyone to easily view, alter, enhance and re-distribute any portion of that code without paying for it (Source: Moylan 2006). For example, with an Open Source operating system, such as Linux, if you decide you don’t like the way the system handles something and you have a programming background, you can modify any aspect of the computer software to suit your own personal needs. If you don’t like the way a button looks, or the way a menu opens – then feel free to tweak the code. You can add, edit, and destroy to your hearts content.

Still confused? Steve Weber, in his book ‘The Success of Open Source’ uses a simple analogy to Coca-Cola to explain the difference between open source and proprietary products. He explains that when you purchase a can of Coke, you are allowed to drink it, and you are also given a generic and vague list of ingredients on the side of the can. But Cola-Cola do not tell you the specifics – they don’t give you the complete recipe. Their secret formula is exactly that, secret – locked in a vault somewhere, with one a few people privileged enough to know what makes up the addictive syrup. Purchasing a can of coke does not give you the right to learn the secret. This is exactly the same with commercial software. Purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows does not give you the right to the source code (i.e. the recipe that tells you exactly how the program was made).

Open Source projects are usually community-based projects built by programmers who donate their time and expertise to create a product that the marketplace is in need of, regardless of whether or not there is a possibility of financial gain (Source: Moylan 2006). In fact, whole virtual communities have been established where geeks worldwide can work together to create software that will hopefully make their lives easier or just more fun. For example, SourceForge.net (at the time of writing) has 128,465 registered projects, and 1,382,867 registered users. All these people work together to create software that anyone, anywhere can modify and customise to suit their personal desires. Open source is about freedom and liberty – not about price.

The Definition of Open Source

To determine whether something can be considered “open source” or not, the Open Source Initiative developed a definition based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted – for the most part – by Bruce Perens (Source: OSI 2006). The Ten Commandments that he came up with are as follows:

1. Free Redistribution
2. Freely Obtainable Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of the Author’s Source Code
5. No Discrimination against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination against Fields of Endeavour
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Take for example a computer program license. For the license to be considered open source, the program must be able to be given away or sold without restraint. The source code must be freely obtainable (either it should come with the program, or available on the Internet for free download). End users must be allowed to redistribute any modifications they make (however depending on the license, some modifications must be redistributed as patches, as to not interfere with the original code). The program should not discriminate against individuals or corporations (i.e. Bill Gates has just as much right to open source software as anyone else). The appropriate license should be travel with the program (or again, be available on the Internet). The program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution but can be distributed with other software that is not considered open source. And finally, the license must not contain any medium specific terms of accepting the license agreement (i.e. it can’t state “to agree to this license click the ‘OK’ button on such-and-such webpage – as websites may become obsolete in the future).

The History of Open Source

Open Source philosophy has been around for a very long time. There are books dedicated to its history, so I will not go into too much detail, as this is not the focus of this document. But basically, it started with hackers such as Richard Stallman, spending huge amounts of time writing software, but instead of selling it for financial gain they wanted to share their work with fellow users (Source: Kidd 2006). They wanted people to learn from what they had made, and improve upon it. Out of respect, any changes that someone makes should be given back to the hacker community, so everyone can learn more from the additions, therefore improving their skills. This sharing of ones ideas and creation was purely based on good moral principles – money, fame and glory did not come into the equation.

The actual term, “open source” however first surfaced on the 3^rd of February 1998, during a strategy session in California, after Netscape (creators of an internet browser called Netscape Navigator – which sparked the browser wars with Microsoft in the 90′s), decided to release the code to their software to the world (Source: OSI 2006). They decided that the term “free software” was too confrontational, and “open source” was the best thing they could come up with at the time. So although open source philosophy has existed for many, many years (as stated previously, the open source definition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines), it was only in 1998 that it became a recognisable term.

Popular Open Source Examples

Even though you may be unaware of it, chances are you make use of open source technology every day. To get you thinking, here are two of the more popular open source examples:

At the time of writing Mozilla Firefox is currently one of the most popular open source software projects going around. With features such as tabbed browsers, integrated search, live bookmarks and a generally faster user experience, it is a lot more feature packed and friendly than proprietary products such as Internet Explorer. Despite the fact that Microsoft and Apple have multimillion dollar development budgets, their browser software is currently being beaten by something developed by the people.

Wikipedia, an open source encyclopaedia is also taking the World Wide Web by storm. Containing over five million articles in a large number of languages, the site is claimed to be one of the top twenty most visited sites on the Internet (Source: Alexa Internet 2006). Anyone can modify the content on Wikipedia, which is one of the key ingredients to its success.

Other Markets…

The open source philosophy has grown across a large amount of different markets – not just the computer industry. For example, in the agriculture industry, open source beer has been created, such as Vores Øl and Free Beer 3.0. The recipes for both of these beers are freely available on the Internet, released under a Creative Commons License. In the health world, organisations such as the Tropical Disease Initiative have been founded investigating open source pharmaceutical development. Content is also a big area, with websites such as Wikipedia (an open source encyclopaedia) and Yellowikis (an open source version of the Yellow Pages) growing bigger and stronger every day. We have already discussed open source software in a fair degree of detail, but open source hardware is also existent. For example, the designs of microchips have been released under open source licensing agreements.

Blogging!

Blogging can also be considered open source, as people are contributing their time and expertise in areas in which they are often not compensated financially. When a blogger reports from a first-hand account, they are in effect “exposing source code” for other people to comment on, enhance and re-distribute (Source: Moylan 2006). The blogger can either take their blogs (their “source code”) and sell it, or promote it for free – just like with open source software. Incidentally, a lot of the web site software used on blogging sites is also open source, such as LifeType.

Society & Culture

Open Source technology is thought to be revolutionary because it promotes concepts of sharing and universal participation. Some believe that this revolution will take us back to the community based ideals of oral cultures, but the thing that puzzles most people about these organisations is that they are non-profitable. There has been a lot of thought put into why these people volunteer their time to set up such outlets and to contribute their information property without any economic remuneration. Demos, “the think tank for everyday democracy”, believe that we are experiencing a historic shift from the rise of the professional in the late 20^th Century to a new phenomenon of people “pursuing amateur activities”, calling this the “Pro-Am Revolution” (Source: Demos 2006). It is believed that this so-called revolution has the potential to strengthen the democratic world by pushing “power to the edges” and to help potential new organisations and leadership emerge through the incubation of this “mega community”.  Goetz likens Open Source to an “ant colony” and believes that “the collective intelligence of the network supersedes any single contributor” (Source: Goetz 2003).

Open source principles have also affected other areas of society and culture, such as politics (i.e. open and collaborative formation of public policy) and journalism (i.e. on-line non-for-profit journalism). Open Source Filmmaking is also starting to gain momentum. One example is Elephants Dream, an animated film created only using open source software, with all the production files available for free download. This means anyone can download and modify the film, distribute it and share their updated version to the internet community.

Open Source Problems/Issues

Like anything, open source does not come without its problems. Luckily though, a lot of the issues of the past are slowly becoming less relevant in more recent times. Compatibility and comparability were once the main topics of conversations when talking about open source, but now some open source technology has become so advanced that it is almost completely compatible and comparable with its proprietary equivalents (for example, with software like WINE, you can run a large portion of Windows-based software on a Linux-based system; you can also open Microsoft Word documents in Open Office).

However there are issues with open source licensing. The main issues that arise are that of ownership. Technically and legally speaking, current open source licenses do not clearly define ownership rights, and therefore there is a possibility that someone could use the open source agreements to take advantage of others peoples hard work, and not give back to the community.

There are also problems with the actual term “open source”. Sometimes the term is used to describe software whose source code is visible, but there are limitations on what can be done with it. For example, you may be able to view the source code, but you may not be allowed to modify it and redistribute it. There is also some confusion between open source software and free software.

Conclusion

Open source philosophy is changing the way people think about technology and society. A couple of years ago you had to fork out a lot of money to get a good graphics editing computer program (such as Adobe Photoshop). Now you can just download a free version of GIMP. You can even modify its source code to make it better, or simply different, if you feel so inclined. Collaborative open source software projects such as Linux and Apache (a web server package) have demonstrated that a large and complex system of code can be built, maintained, developed and extended in a non-proprietary environment (Source: Weber 2004, p. 2). Outside of the computer world, people have created open source beer and cola. Vast amounts of informative content are being release as open source on sites such as Wikipedia. Blogging is becoming a household term, with people globally sharing their views and thoughts for free to anyone who wants to listen, watch or read. Even open source pharmaceutical development is on the horizon.

Despite the fact that most people would have never predicted that a system based around people working for free would work, open source philosophy is making a big impact. The thing to understand is that open source embraces the philosophy of sharing, and because of this, concepts such as piracy are no longer a problem. You are encouraged to share and spread open source products as much as you like. You can copy and redistribute, even after modification. This provides users with a freedom that is not obtainable from proprietary products (as illustrated right throughout this document), and creates remarkable opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs around the world, especially in developing countries.

References:

• Alexa Internet 2006, Top 500 Web Sites, viewed 8th September 2006, http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500
• Kidd, E 2000, A History of “Open Source”, UserLand Software, viewed 8th September 2006, http://static.userland.com/userLandDiscussArchive/msg019844.html
• Moylan, C 2006, The Philosophy of Open Source, Associated Content Inc., viewed 8^th September 2006, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/32264/the_philosophy_of_open_source.html
• Open Source Initiative 2006, History of the OSI, viewed 8^th September 2006, http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php
• Open Source Initiative 2006, The Open Source Definition, viewed 8^th September 2006, http://opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php
• Weber, S 2004, The Success of Open Source, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Closed Source, Wikipedia, viewed 8^th September 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Closed_source&oldid=71562909
• Goetz, T 2003, Open Source Everywhere, Wired Magazine, viewed 8^th September 2006, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html
• Demos 2006, The Pro-Am Revolution, viewed 8^th September 2006, http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/proameconomy

External Links:

• The Problems with Open Source
• Problems of Open Source Software: Annotated Chronicle
• Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”
• Open Source: Voices from the Open Source Revolution
• History of the OSI
• The Origins and Future of Open Source Software
• A quick history of Open Source…
• Vores Øl Homepage
• Free Beer Homepage
• Problems in Open Source Licensing
• Open Source (Wikipedia)
• Neuros takes open source approach to hardware and software development
• The Cathedral and the Bazaar
• Fighting Raymondism
• Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm (PDF)
• An open-source shot in the arm?
• Open Source Software
• Realizing the Promise of Open Source in the Non-profit Sector
• The Great Software Debate: Technology and Ideology
• A History of Open Source
• History of Unix, Linux, and Open Source / Free Software
• Open Source Politics
• Elephants Dream

When inventor Paul Nipkow completed his “electric telescope” in 1884, he could not have predicted the impact it would later make on the world. Nipkow’s device, which allowed the sending of images over wires, inspired others to build upon this exciting new technology (Wikipedia 2006).  In 1900, the term “television” was coined by Russian Constantin Perskyi. Thirty years later, the first television commercial was transmitted, and the British Broadcasting Commission began regular broadcasting (Bellis 2005). “Television” was now a recognized term. By 1948 over one million homes in the United States alone had television sets, allowing them to tune into shows such as Allen Funt’s Candid Camera, a show where ordinary people were caught on film during embarrassing staged pranks (Murray & Ouellette 2004, p.3). The post-World War II Americans of the 1950s were content with this type of good humoured show. Funt suggested that its success was due to its presentation of “people caught in the act of being themselves” (Balkin 2003). Even though participants might have been briefly embarrassed, their privacy and dignity were ultimately protected, plus no one was actually hurt (Balkin 2003). With the advent of network television, a new genre of programming had arrived: reality TV.

As society progressed, and television technology continued to develop, so did this fresh genre. The 1960s brought with it a rise in social revolution, human rights movements, civil rights movements, and anti-War movements (Wikipedia 2006). Although this decade affected all corners of the globe, in western societies particularly, more people started to protested, riot and reject their conformist lifestyle. By the time Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon, society was more sexually open and violent in their actions. Television had no option but to follow suit.

By the 1970s viewers, who were now accustomed to watching confronting Vietnam War footage as they sat around the dinner table, were finally ready for watching programs that displayed even more reality and further invasiveness (Balkin 2003). Non-profit station PBS responded in 1973 by broadcasting a weekly unscripted and unrehearsed show called An American Family which followed the real life travails of the Loud family (IMDb 2006). Reality TV was getting cruder, but it was not yet purely a money-making venture.

Eighteen years later, MTV’s The Real World had drifted further away from its predecessors, focussing on entertaining a younger audience with a cast specifically chosen to ignite conflict (Murray & Ouellette 2004, p.3). During the early years of the 21^st century, reality programs continued along this path. Viewers by the millions were tuning in to watch participants argue, fight, dine on rats and other grotesque creatures, lie to one another and reveal their most intimate personal details to a potentially worldwide audience. Reality television had transformed from a good humoured source of entertainment into a contest where participants competed against one another for love or money. Unlike those of the past, shows like Survivor, preyed on people who were willing to risk everything to win a sizeable cheque. Reality television had invaded the small screen. As president of CBS stated: “the world as we knew it is over” (Murray & Ouellette 2004, p.4).

These new breeds of reality television programs share a common characteristic in that they exploit vulnerable social groups. Shows like that of Idol, Pop Stars and X-factor franchises have proven time and time again that people will do just about anything to be on television and claim their five minutes of fame. These programs target young and naïve people who are tempted by the remote possibility that they might end up strutting down red carpets amongst their favourite celebrities. The reality is that only a few people out of the thousands of participants will actually get to a point in the competition where anyone will start taking them seriously. It is also important to understand that reality television is a dangerous mix of reality and fantasy. Unlike fictionalised drama, where only characters get hurt, in reality television programs, real inexperienced teenagers can be emotionally damaged when, for example, Ian Dickson tells them that their voice “should come with a government health warning” (IMDb 2006). The ironic thing is that some of the worst performers, such as William Hung, sometimes end up with the most success because they are exploited and marketed for comedy value.

Big Brother is another example of networks exploiting vulnerable social groups, but instead of just focussing on young and naïve participants, they take advantage of those that do not have permanent fulltime employment and therefore have the ability to take several months off at a time. By offering a substantial sum of money to the winner of the competition, television networks lour in individuals who are struggling to pay the bills all at the cost of their self-respect and privacy. For most housemates, Big Brother is just another “get rich quick” scheme.

Even shows such as Survivor take advantage of a specific type of individual, although not one that you would usually associate with being exploitable. Unlike those that feature in Big Brother or Idol, these candidates do not necessarily have to be youthful, but instead must have the drive to do whatever it takes to win the competition. Survivor targets those who are experienced, ruthless and competitive. Where Idol has students and musicians, Big Brother tradesman and fish & chip shop employees, Survivor has lawyers and ex-Navy seal operatives. This variety of show also has a genuine element of risk. Despite the fantasy situations, participants, who are real people, can get physically harmed as they perform various stunts. During production, the stakes are heightened even further when viewers grow bored of the show and the producers are forced to increase the danger in an attempt to increase viewers, and with them, advertising revenue.

Jerry Springer is another obvious example of producers taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of people, specifically, unstable working class types with serious personal and relationship issues that can’t afford to get assistance through counselling or other expensive means. Audience’s world-wide tune into this program, and laugh at these peoples expense; much like the freak shows of yesteryear. Funniest Home Videos is just as immoral as it catches parents shamelessly exploiting their injured children and costumed pets for the chance of winning a hefty cash price (Rowen 2000).

The harsh truth is that, like every business, reality television programs exist purely to make money. In the late 1980s television networks found themselves in financial troubles as they started failing to raise enough money to survive. This, and the other factors, such a labour instability, forced the television industry to re-evaluate their programming tactics (Murray & Ouellette 2004, p.7). It did not take long for networks to realise that reality television was the ideal solution. Because reality television shows are unscripted, networks would no longer have to be dependent on hiring unionised writers and actors (Murray & Ouellette 2004, p.7). Where it can take as much as four million dollars Australian to produce a sitcom or drama, an episode for a reality television program will generally cost around a third of that price (Balkin 2003). Because of this, many public television stations, particularly in Europe embraced reality programming. It had been transformed from a form of entertainment into a financial survival mechanism (Murray & Ouellette 2004, p.7).

One of the key differences between reality television of the past, and that of the likes of Big Brother and Idol is that by utilising new technology such as SMS and The Internet, viewers can interact with the show, voting people they like to “play on” and evict those they do not. At first this may seem like a logical step to expanding upon television as an entertainment and information medium, but once profits gained are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that it is just another method for the networks to make money. There are sponsorship deals for the naming rights to bigbrother web site domains. These websites are covered in advertising banners. In Australia, by placing the Big Brother house in the theme park Dreamworld, all parties benefit as each can promote the others respective businesses and products. It is also worth noting that Dreamworld is owned by the Macquarie Leisure Trust, which also owns and operates AMF bowling, a sponsor of the Australian show. These are all examples confirming that television stations have chosen profit over entertainment value. Instead of allocating funds to developing new dramas or sitcoms, they are exploiting specific demographics so they can output content at the minimum of costs.

It is not only new technology that has helped networks satisfy advertisers. Producers also have taken advantage of more traditional advertising means to increase their cash flow. Big Brother is again a most appropriate example. All the items inserted into the house have been placed there through sponsorship deals. In Australia, all of the food products within the house come from specific food companies that have commercial agreements with the show’s production company. Any food products that are not covered by a contract have their labels removed (Wikipedia 2006). The Australian Big Brother has affiliations and sponsorship agreements with paint suppliers, alcohol brewers, car manufactures, building supplies, home automation fitters, fitness organisations and even carpet companies. More obvious forms of traditional advertising can be found during eviction shows, where walls are covered in signs and banners much like that of football ovals.

When shows such as An American Family were being aired in the 1970s, reality television was just another harmless form of entertainment. But as society progressed, and “making a profit” became more important, programs like MTV’s Cops emerged to keep networks afloat. By the new millennium reality television no longer had any redeeming features; it was all about making a profit. Television networks started to exploit a wide variety of social groups to help achieve this aim. They started to use new technology to increase their cash flow. Product placement techniques started to become common place, keeping advertisers happy. Reality television demonstrates that civilisation has put ethics and morals aside, so that corporations can make money. It will be interesting to see what networks will do next when people become bored of the current reality television format, forcing producers to formulate new ways of keeping advertisers satisfied.

Bibliography/References:

• Balkin, K 2003, Reality TV: introduction, Greenhaven Press, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.enotes.com/reality-tv-article/39483
• Bellis, M 2005, History of television timeline, About, viewed 22 May 2006, http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_television_timeline.htm
• Big Brother Suppliers 2006, Endemol Southern Star, viewed 22 May 2006, http://bigbrother.3mobile.com.au/bigbrother/suppliers.asp
• Cline, A 2005, Ethics and reality TV, About, viewed 22 May 2006, http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_realitytv.htm
• Friedman, J 2002, Reality squared: televisual discourse on the real, Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.
• Grindstaff, L 2002, The money shot: trash, class and the making of TV talk shows, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Hendershot, H 2005, The boob tube, Flow, viewed 22 May 2006, http://jot.communication.utexas.edu/flow/?jot=view&id=513
• Internet Movie Database Incorporated, An American family, Amazon, viewed 22 May 2006,  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211195/
• Internet Movie Database Incorporated, Candid Camera, Amazon, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045376/
• Internet Movie Database Incorporated, Memorable Quotes from “Australian Idol”, Amazon, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382400/quotes
• Internet Movie Database Incorporated, The real world, Amazon, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103520/
• Murray, S & Ouellette L 2004, Reality TV: remaking television culture, University Press, New York.
• Reality TV history summary 2005, BookRags, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.bookrags.com/history/popculture/reality-tv-bbbb-05/
• Roscoe, J 2002, Interview with Peter Abbott, Carfax Publishing, Australia.
• Rowen, B 2000, History of Reality TV, infoplease, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.infoplease.com/spot/realitytv1.html
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, 1960s, Wikipedia, viewed 22 May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960s&oldid=54505672
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Big Brother (Australian TV series), Wikipedia, viewed 22 May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_%28Australian_TV_series%29&oldid=54496067
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, History of television, Wikipedia, viewed 22 May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_television&oldid=53947080
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Jerry Springer, Wikipedia, viewed 22 May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Springer&oldid=54143409
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, Wikipedia, viewed 22 May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow&oldid=52700591
• Wikipedia contributors 2006, Reality television, Wikipedia, viewed 22 May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality_television&oldid=53948497
• William Hung 2006, Intermix Network, viewed 22 May 2006, http://www.williamhung.net/

As you know, every time we come across a media text, we’re not seeing reality, but instead someone’s interpretation of it. The media take something that’s real, manipulated its form to suit a specific purpose, and we end up something very different to the original. This is the process is of mediation (Northallerton College).

An example of this is television show, The Glass House. The punters sitting in the studio audience will see something very different to what ends up eventually getting aired. The seemingly spur-of-the-moment jokes will have been practised repeatedly; the crowd will have been warmed up and trained on how to laugh plus additional audio and computer graphic will have been added in post production. The whole experience of hearing a few John Howard jokes will have been mediated extensively (Northallerton College).

This type of consideration is relevant whether analysing a newspaper or TV news program (and you think to yourself “how true is it?”), criticising a film or television drama (“how lifelike is it?”) or even when evaluating advertisements (“can that stainless steel knife really cut a shoe in half?”) (Dover).

If you look at the definition of the word “media” – which is defined as a medium for carrying or communicating information (Wikipedia 2006) – Chinese whispers, or the telling of a joke springs to my mind. One joke can be told a million different ways by a million different people. More relevantly: one news story can be conveyed very differently by different TV crews or newspaper reporters.

Something worth thinking about though is whether or not it’s even worth raising the issue of ‘realism’ these days? I mean, doesn’t everyone already understand that the reality presented by the media isn’t really real? Isn’t it just a method of intellectualising about forms of fashionable entertainment which weren’t really meant to be read into so deeply or taken so seriously (Dover)? A story of a man getting hit in the groin with a football may have been just a funny narrative in the authors mind, and yet a media studies student will be able to tear the story to shreds and write pages and pages of complex analytical garbage.

That said, it’s probably better to be aware of the prevalence, influence and social effects of the content that’s being (or not being) presented to us as a “real” and “true” (Dover). That way we can develop an understanding of not only how the media operates but also why they operate, retaining a sense of “critical distance” (Dover). Was the film I, Robot made simply to entertain kids or rather to sell more Audi cars, Converse shoes, JVC CD Players and increase FedEx’s clientele? Sociological, political, cultural and ideological influences all determine the way in which the media presents reality to us, as do other influences such as financial and economic factors as shown in the previous example (Dover).

There was a point in the past though, when the term ‘realism‘ was considered outdated and the significance of realist approaches less relevant (Branston & Stafford 2003). Some theories suggested that there is no ‘real’ to represent and that realism is, in effect, just an illusion (Osborne 2001). But now days, with reality TV invading primetime and the insistence of trying to create exact replicas of the past (such as Jackson recreating New York in King Kong), questions of realism have returned with revenge (Branston & Stafford 2003).

With realism back in the limelight, we can once again start to put it under the magnifying glass. One of the main problems concerning realism is the idea that any representation is a selection, and therefore elements have been specifically selected or ignored for inclusion and arranged in whatever manner the creator so desires. For example, in the build up to the 2001 Federal Election the Australian government told the public that a group of Iraqi asylum seekers threw their children overboard, backing their claims with photographs to help fuel the government’s campaign to demonise asylum seekers trying to reach the country. It was later revealed that the public weren’t shown the bigger picture – the refugee’s boat was sinking and no one was in fact thrown in – they jumped.

But even if we were able to include every single itty-bitty detail and possess a completely objective perspective, we cannot convey reality in words because words are just signs – arbitrary signifiers that have no logical relationship to what they symbolize, and therefore cannot clearly and objectively represent reality (Lye 1997). Even the word ‘reality’ has its problems – it’s far too comprehensive and encompasses way too much to be of any real use as well as restricting our very sense of what ‘reality’ actually is (Lye 1997).

Bibliography/References:

• Osborne, R 2001, Megawords, Allen & Unmin, Crows Nest.
• Branston, G & Stafford, R 2003, The Media Student’s Book, Routledge, New York.
• Plato, The Republic, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
• Pope, V 2002, Representation and Realism, viewed 25 March 2006, http://www.litnotes.co.uk/realism.htm.
• Representation, Northallerton College, viewed 25 March 2006, http://www.northallertoncoll.org.uk/media/representation.htm.
• Lye, J 1997, Some Notes on Realism, Brock University, viewed 25 March 2006, http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/2F55/realism.html.
• Dover, R, The News: Realism, Narrative and Form, viewed 25 March 2006, http://www.newi.ac.uk/RDOVER/MED-STUD/the_new2.htm.
• Dover, R, Realism and the Contexts of the Media, viewed 25 March 2006, http://www.newi.ac.uk/RDOVER/MED-STUD/realism_.htm.
• ‘Media’ 2006, Wikipedia, viewed 25 March 2006.