I had one request to see what comprehensive exams were like for me, so I'm going to post one question and my answer here. I still don't know if it was a good one. My oral defense where I really find out how I did is Thursday. Of them all, I think I'm the most confident about this one, and it fits with the them of the blog. Sorry it's so long. This was the first one I took and I probably had the most energy then.

Question:
To paraphrase McLuhan, is the technology the message? And if so, at what level?
Many have argued that citizen journalism is the product of the Internet and can only survive in an online environment. But has technology a new phenomenon in the news world or has it always played a role?
An alternate view of communications technology is that the excitement its development generates is the source of civic interaction. That implies that society-building might only occur with newer and newer technology.
And stuck somewhere in the middle of this are the non-professional communicators. Do journalists really “own” the communications techniques in which they become experts? And does that expertise ensure better communication in society? What happens when amateurs violate the rules of use established by the pros?
Use your knowledge of the history and greater concept of “journalism” to explain how the technology it has used through makes, breaks or is the message – or the messenger:
• Who “owns” the medium and controls its development? Does society drive the development of technology or does technology drive the growth of society?
• What, if any, core values link communications technologies?
• What logic is there to the progression of communications innovation?
• What connection is there between smoke signals or cave paintings to Facebook posts or SMS messages?
• Is citizen journalism a Web phenomenon? Or, perhaps, does the Web facilitate it in ways unlike other media?
Extend this thread to the future. As technology develops, how will it change societal communication? What role, if any, will the specialists in communication technology – aka “journalists” – have as technology simplifies the physical and logistical challenges of communications?

Answer:
When Marshall McLuhan posited the medium is the message, he was not specifically referring to the impact technological innovation has and will have on communications. But his arguments seem to fit a time when the media has become even more prevalent, when anyone can publish just about anything online and when the role of the traditional media, such as newspapers and television, is weakening each day. McLuhan might say the technology of the Internet, with its interactivity, its ease of publishing, its devil-may-care attitude toward the truth, is determining what people are doing with it, but this kind of thinking disregards the core values of communication and the process of communication innovation. The Internet’s original design as a way to ensure communication in the event of a national communication failure had little if anything to do with the ways in which people use it today. In fact, the technological innovations present on the Internet today and the ones that will drive its future depend more on the central reasons behind why people have always communicated. In many ways, the Internet represents a throwback that brings people closer to and expands upon the interpersonal and group communication activities that upon which society has always relied.
Communications develops as a function of its utility, scholars such as Everett Rogers (1979) and Sandra Ball-Rokeach (1998) would argue. People adopt innovative technology and become reliant on it because they find ways to use it, not the other way around. No matter how advanced a technology or how capable a medium is, they cannot force anyone to use them. In looking specifically at the Internet, Gillmor (2004) explains the Internet has developed primarily as a social medium, and its communication uses depend upon how it fits into the social networks it creates.
Before examining these theoretical views of communication technology and innovation, this paper start by discussing who owns communication and innovation, and next discussing communication’s core values. Next, I will examine history and values influence the logic of communication adoption, and making connections between ancient and modern communication formats. Finally, I’ll take a glimpse into the future of communication and how some scholars are saying professional journalists must adapt in order to mesh with the re-expression of primal communication urges the Internet represents.
1) Who owns the medium and controls its development?
In drafting the Bill of Rights the founding fathers recognized the need for free speech and free press. Jefferson even famously declared he’d rather have newspapers than government, even though he’d later regret his words. Arguably, their main goal in codifying speech and press freedom was to ensure this function remained democratic. In other words, the founding fathers understood these concepts belonged to individuals, not to businesses, government or elite groups.
Their simple words in the First Amendment echoed years of philosophic discussion about the role free speech plays in society. Philosophers, such as Milton, argued for a complete lack of censorship because they believed that as messages grappled, a better picture of the truth would appear. The more messages available, even if most were erroneous, the clearer picture of truth citizens could draw. No one, they argued, had a monopoly on truth – not government, not the monarchy, and certainly not the press.
Even if the press does not own the truth, it has, in the past, owned the mechanisms for its dissemination, and economics might have deceived members of the press into thinking they had control. Until the Internet revolution, Gillmor (2004) argues, widely publicizing one’s own comments or point of view required either access to a printing press or TV or radio station, which for most was cost prohibitive, or the ear of the press. This all changed when desktop publishing gave anyone with a computer, a cheap or even free piece of software, and a laser printer the opportunity to create professional publications at home. It changed even more when the Internet made print publication unnecessary. Looking at how early adopters of desktop publishing and blogging software used their innovations underscores who owns the media and ultimately who determines their innovation.
Gillmor (2004) describes the story of Dave Winer, an Apple developer and one of the ‘Net’s first bloggers. He adapted software originally designed for business group use to attack the tech press’ continual misinformation about the future of the Apple computer platform. As his early weblog found more and more readers, it helped lead the charge of developing innovation for personal communication needs. It also helped give people the power to cover the stories the media missed and comment on their coverage.
Winer’s case also illustrates the reciprocal nature of innovative communication technology. On one hand, it seems technology comes first as people look for ways to accomplish their communication tasks better or preserve their ability in the future. On the other, the technology that springs from these innovations rarely is used in a vacuum. People find more and even better uses for the technology than the original developers conceived. Friedman (2004) discusses how Linus Torvalds helped a group of people develop an open-source operating system named after him (Linux) as a response to the dominance and flaws of Windows. This is a case of people driving technology. By releasing the software and its source code free on the Internet, Linux allowed the technology to drive others to create Apache and the other elements of the architecture that runs most Web sites today.
2) Core communication values
Just as utility drives innovative technology, it also lies at the core of communication, Flannagin and Metzger (2000) argue. Identifying core values, however, requires one to go further back, potentially even to the dawn of man. Shoemaker (1986) argued that humans are hardwired for news. They learned to communicate what was going on to each other to ensure their survival in a dangerous world. Shoemaker called this the surveillance function of news. Knowing what was going on gave a person a better chance of avoiding danger and fitting in. Even today, obtaining news allows people to function better within a society and make stronger connections with those around them.
When Flannagin and Metzer describe the message and personal elements of communication, they make this point as well. Communication is only valuable to people, they argue, based on what it can do for them. It can either provide the information necessary for survival, which today revolves around news that allows us to function safely and properly within our society, or it can help them make connections with other people to add to their happiness and well being.
These core elements of communication – utility and connection – are also evident as communication technology develops. Despite the growth of the Internet, no one has created new communication. Examining the ways people use the Internet show they are doing what they always have, except as Rafaeli, Ravid and Soroka (2004) argue, they are unfettered by boundaries such as geography and time. They found that online communities, such as discussion boards, have the power to create lasting relationships (connection) and social capital (utility) as long as people are involved. Even those who do not participate in online discussions benefit from the communication on the site in feeling connected and having more of a desire to act outside of the Internet community. Their work demonstrates how a person’s hardwiring for news encourages them to create and expand new technologies that better fulfill the core communication needs of connection and utility.
3) Connection between ancient and modern forms
The core values expressed in modern communication technologies may be just new manifestations of old strategies. The smoke signals and cave paintings of the past may just have been replaced by Facebook and SMS text messages because the central reason for their creation remains the same. People are simply sharing information or forging connections they believe will benefit them and others in this world.
John Miles Foley (2006), an oral history and classical scholar, argues the Internet represents a close approximation of ancient communication traditions. Oral traditions, as exemplified by Beowulf or The Illiad, are not owned by one person or even one community. It is modern society that has tried to attribute them to one poet, such as Homer, because it is stuck in a textual world and a fruitless search for ownership. The most important aspect of an oral tradition is sharing it with no consideration of how people will use it. One oral performance of the same story or tale may differ from an earlier one as poets adapt to audiences. Regardless, there is no definitive version of the tale. They are not shared necessarily to present a true version of history, but more as a way to bolster communities. They come with their own “performance arena” that if participants understand and belong to, they get more from the message.
Countless modern examples exist within Foley’s context for oral tradition. YouTube features countless videos that are re-edited. Wikis represent a community’s knowledge rather than an individual’s. Lawrence Lessig (2004) argues that true ownership cannot exist in a digital world, precisely because it operates more in line with oral traditions than modern textual ones. It is impossible and pointless to prevent transference of digital files. Media companies that try hurt themselves in their audiences eyes more than help their own cause.
4) Citizen Journalism
The oral tradition of the Internet may be at evidence most in citizen journalism, where in the United States, participants in citizen journalism efforts focus more on sharing and connecting with others, rather than providing a definitive version of the truth. Bentley et. al (2005) found the most frequent topics on MyMissourian.com dealt with slices of life not covered by the traditional media. The more the site’s editors tried to steer posts toward topics the traditional media deemed newsworthy, the less successful they were. They (2006) later found the most commonly stated motivation for visiting the site was feeling part of a community. In both studies, the site operated more as a compliment to traditional media rather than a replacement. One reason the authors thought people did not turn to MyMissourian for political information was this was well covered by the local newspapers.
Stempel, Hargrove & Berndt (2000) and Althaus & Tewksbury (2002) found similar results as they examined the Internet’s relationship with traditional media. Even though circulation decreased each year from 1995 to 1999, Stempel et. al could not attribute this decrease to the Internet. Even in a “wired” community, Althaus & Tewksbury did not see the Internet displacing traditional information media. If it cut into anything, the Internet replaced some of the other entertainment media a person used.
5) The logic of communication innovation
All three of these studies seem to defy how one would logically consider Internet use. People have limited time. It stands to reason that they’ll have to use other media less if they use the Internet for news. But this kind of thinking does not take into consideration the core values of communication or the ability of the Internet to better fulfill those communication needs. Rogers (1979) diffusion of innovation theory guides this discussion because it recognizes the utility and connection values, while also shedding light on the reasons why some innovations succeed and others fail. We also need to consider the reciprocal nature of technological development described earlier, where individuals might drive technology at first but technology later takes on a life of its own.
Diffusion of innovation focuses on how people use innovations rather than how they are intended to be used. It examines the complexity of the innovation, as in how easy it is to use, and the amount of information available about the innovation. It adds how easy it is to get the information and the innovation itself to the mix. Applying diffusion of innovation theory to mass communication innovation requires first considering the core values – how useful is this to people to accomplish their communication needs and how much will it help them connect? Also considering what barriers to entry exist to the innovation and how complex it is are vital. But in the end, researchers have to understand that communication innovation isn’t doing anything new. The most successful innovations will be those that allow us to fulfill the core values of communication in the simplest ways and with the fewest barriers.
Interactivity, Bucy (2004) said, one of the innovations the Internet makes possible, developed not in from capability, but from its utility. Adding scores of interactive features on a Web site, he said, is easy, and the more interactive a Web site is, the more people stand to gain from it. Eveland and Dunwoody (2000) and Tremayne and Dunwoody (2001) suggested people learned more and generated more social capital from interactive presentations. At the same time, however, Bucy (2004) explained more interactivity is not always best. Asking people to do too much creates what he calls the “interactivity paradox” because it can backfire. People have limited cognitive resources to devote to information acquisition. Eveland and Dunwoody (2000) also found that the more complex people found Web sites, the more time they spent just on orienting themselves to their features, and the less time they had for learning.
The logical way communication technology progresses then, these studies suggest, is from more complex to less. Progress occurs not as sites offer more and more communication opportunities but as more and more people find utility and connection from their endeavors. For online journalism, the innovation should occur in a way that promises not just more information, but better ways to use that information and better ways to connect. Rafaeli (1988) calls this true interactivity. It’s not enough, he says, to offer people a place to comment. Journalists must join the conversation.
In categorizing how news appears on the Web, Deuze contrasted the amount of editorial control the organization behind the site exercised with the degree of connection they had with audiences. He theorized the sites that would be most successful in adapting to the changing communication landscape would be those that balanced control and connection equally in a way he called dialogic. Instead of just providing news, these sites created conversations with audiences about the issues that the news organization deemed most important.
6) Innovation without technology
The logic of communication innovation helps explain why citizen journalism sites proliferated. Online technology made it relatively easy for people to submit and discuss the stories they thought were missing from the traditional media. They found utility in submitting because it gave them a forum they wanted and allowed them to connect to other like-minded folks. But to say that citizen journalism is only possible because of the Internet denies the core values of communication and the core reasons why communication innovates. The Internet has certainly made citizen journalism easier to implement, but it hasn’t created a new need. People have always wanted a forum for their stories, even if the media haven’t always provided it. Gillmor (2004) argues the early pamphleteers such as Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry were citizen journalists. They did not use the mainstream press to publish their ideas.
The difference between their day and today, however, is economics and arrogance. The traditional media have maintained such a stranglehold on the ways in which to disseminate information that it was nearly impossible for citizen journalism to reach the audiences necessary to be effective. Media owners set barriers to entry so high that people were forced to use their products to have an audience; then their editors set the standards for inclusion so high that no one but professional journalists had the opportunity. To be fair, logistical concerns also limited the average person’s access to the media. The newspaper, for example, only has so much space for letters to the editor.
What the Internet has made possible is a way around the media controllers. As Gillmor (2004) argues, it eliminates many of the barriers to entry associated with mass communication. Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can reach a nearly unlimited audience. It also cuts across geographic boundaries that the traditional media cannot.
Even if technological advantage did not create the need for citizen journalism, it did make full realization of the idea possible. Journalism movements such as public journalism and social responsibility might have failed because the way to connect journalists with their audience did not exist until the Internet came around. Logistic concerns, such as the size of the news hole, might be more to blame than media professionals for limiting the amount of citizen contribution a news organization can reasonably accommodate.
6) The Future
The fact remains that the media has not listened to their audiences well in the past, and to survive in the new media landscape, they must begin to embrace the communication innovations that make citizen journalism possible. In a content analysis of the top 20 blogs associated with the mainstream media, Singer (2004) noticed that journalists were already beginning to adapt their work routines and presentations to what they saw on the Internet. But they still had a long way to go before truly fulfilling the core values of communication in the way the Internet makes possible. Only three of the 20 blogs at that time gave readers the chance to comment. None of those three writers admitted to reading or doing anything with the comments other than publishing them on the site.
To realize the benefits interactivity offers, journalists must do more than offer comments. As Rafaeli (1988) and others argue, they need to form lasting relationships with their audiences by responding to the comments and giving readers the chance to talk back. In essence, what he and Gillmor (2004) call for is “journalism as a conversation.” What the journalism of the future needs, Gillmor argues are specialists who comb through all the information available and help readers make sense of it, while continuing to communicate with audiences to determine what they want and need. This may change a reporter’s role from content producer to content editor, but it will not change the work they do. When so many sources clamor to be heard, some with questionable credibility, the journalist should cleave to what makes them different even more. Kovach & Rosenstiel (2007) call these the elements of journalism, which include a commitment to the truth, a discipline of verification, a commitment to fairness, and an objective method.
Conclusion
More than anything journalists should recognize they have never had a monopoly on information or on its dissemination networks. Communication, whether mass or interpersonal, exists because people find it useful and find it brings them together. They have always needed to communicate, and they will always find ways to do that. Technology helps make the process easier, but it does not change the needs. With this in mind, a journalist’s goal should be to join the conversation, not create it. At best, they can lead the conversation through the many paths and directions it will take. At worst, they can stifle communication by trying to control it or telling people what to talk about. The best journalistic skills – verification, fairness, objective and transparent methods – will serve them well in either a print, broadcast, or online world. By relying on their training and experience, they can join the online conversation and preserve what make them valuable to their audiences – their credibility. Like communication itself, what determines credibility will not change online. It will only get easier to build or to destroy. Shifting focus from content producer to content editor, however, will go a long way toward leveraging the credibility news organizations still have and potentially expanding what they have with audiences. It all starts by recognizing that we, the media, do not have all the answers.

I should have known better. I should not have trusted what everyone assumes is common knowledge, but I did, and now I'm paying the price. You see, I asked my online journalism class of juniors and seniors to set up blogs on the web space the university gives them, and I told them to use free software you can download. I assumed they'd find it easy because, hey, they're the Internet generation. They've been creating Web pages since birth! But when some of them didn't even understand the difference between saving something on their laptop and onto the Web server and after the university's servers made using MySQL impossible, we gave up. Go to BlogSpot or WordPress, my young charges, I told them today, completely frustrated with the entire experience.
I also tried to put the experiment in perspective for them a little bit, and I think it provided me and those who are designing the news for the Web generation a couple of important lessons: The best way to reach people online is not assuming they know how to use the technology, not forcing them to jump through a million hoops to get it, and designing information that is captivating and useful.
First, it is becoming painfully apparent to me every day that assuming young people know everything there is to know about the Internet is insane. It goes against almost every theory media researchers hold deal, especially diffusion of innovations. I still can't believe I haven't found a diffusion of innovations study that examines the iPod. I'd bet I could even get Apple to fund it, because as widely used as iPods are, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that few owners do more with their iPods than listen to them. Most probably loaded it full of songs when they first got it, and haven't opened iTunes since. The same probably holds true with the Internet. Most people, including the young, use it extensively, but they use it for things they find useful. They'll visit Facebook or post on their blog. They might add a few photos to Flickr or a comment or two on a discussion board. But I don't know when we started thinking that just because they use it a lot that they know what the difference between HTML and PHP is. I've learned a lot online by just poking around, and I'm pretty proud of what I know, but it doesn't mean I can do everything I want online. Why would I assume others could too?
Second, just as we can't assume Internet knowledge, we also can't assume technology has made it easy for people to do what they want. We had a great discussion in my class today about what makes a Web site simple, and how most local news sites just aren't. Adding a bunch of videos and photos to the site is great, but you have to have a better reason for doing it then just because you can. I feel bad for picking on a few of my journalist friends (Sorry Jud and Ian!) in class today, but I needed examples of the unnecessary hoops media companies are asking their reporters to jump through to fill their sites with multi-media content. Despite the great skill of these and other reporters, asking them to do too much ultimately muddles the information landscape and makes finding the information readers want and need too difficult.
To make multimedia work, journalists need to know what their readers want and what they need, because no matter the technology, good compelling content will find its audience online. That is what news organizations should focus on - not buying all their reporters Flips. Think about the videos that have captured the nation's attention recently, and I think you'll find few that were professionally produced. In fact, most were produced by amateurs. But from the Virginia Tech cell phone video to Charlie Bit my Finger!, they demonstrated how powerful good (and funny) content can be.
So don't make the same mistake I did. Don't assume what your audience knows or wants. Focus instead on creating good content, and you will find your audience, even if it's not the same as what you thought it would be.

I try to be realistic. I try to put things in perspective. Nothing is ever as bad or as hard as it seems. That being said, however, I just want to say that I'm glad I'm finished with my comprehensive exams. I'm pretty mentally exhausted. I feel like I couldn't outwit Miss Teen South Carolina, but I think I did well. I also never want to have to do that again. I have to admit, however, that it was good preparation for my life as a professor ahead of me, and a confidence booster, to some extent, that I might actually know what I am talking about.

Comprehensive exams, or comps, are one of the final rites of passage for a Ph.D. student. Once you pass them, you officially signal you are finished with classes. You have to pass them before your professors let you start writing your dissertation. They consist basically of a four-hour essay exam based on a list of 20-25 readings, including books and journal articles, that you put together. I ended up taking one test each day for this last week. Yeah, I've been pretty out of it. I'm sure Merilee has caught me muttering "social cognitive theory recognizes five capabilities that make human distinct from other animals: symbolic, vicarious, forethought, self-regulatory and self-control capabilities." I didn't study as much as I should have, but I was pleasantly surprised by all I remembered. A couple of the questions, at first, didn't seem like they had much to do with what I studied, but careful consideration revealed they applied a lot more than I thought. Either that or I just can BS well.

If anyone's curious I can post a question and a response next week. I get them all back, ungraded, so I can prepare for my oral defense. That's when I get to fill in the gaps between what I did write and what I should have written. I'm sure there will be plenty of room for improvement, but I also think there's a lot I got right.

What comps really taught me is what eluded me (and the rest of the nation) in high school. I really have started to learn things because I want to, because I see utility in them, not just because I have to regurgitate them for a test. It also taught me that I can apply them when I need to, and I can make sense doing it.

The most elusive concept I think I got was what "theory" really means. It's really easy to think of theory as a catch-all, end-all, be-all explanation for life, when really it's just one person's logical and well-thought out way of trying to make sense of the world. As scientist, all we can do it try to explain the data at hand a little better each time, in hopes we can inspire someone else to do a little more with our ideas next time. I'm actually looking forward to trying my hand at it as a professor. If comps taught me anything, I might be kind of good at it.

Then again, I haven't made it through the oral defense yet. Yikes!

Some of the fondest memories of growing up were Christmas dinners with my family. For some reason, I always got stuck making the mashed potatoes, but in my family, that was an honor. It meant you got to use the ancient Swiss torture device. For the Swiss, creamy mashed potatoes are not enough. They must be as creamy and as smooth as molten glass, and to do that you need a machine forged by Hephaestus himself. All the younger nieces and nephews feared it, probably because I'd chase them around the house with it, working the stainless steel blade in the middle of the sieve-like extruder as fast as I could.

In the intervening years, I've learned the device is called a ricer, and it's origins are not as exotic as I thought. But whenever I think of that thing, I remember good times and the reason why I write.

One year, I included a description of Christmas dinner in a column I wrote for my first newspaper. My family got a hold of it and laughed heartily. They still remind me of that column every Christmas, and as much as I try to shrug off their comments, inside I'm proud someone noticed what I had written, and it made them laugh a little bit.

Now most of my writing is academic. It's probably stuff that only a few people will read, and the feedback I get will be "add a citation here," "use regression instead of ANOVA there." But I can hope that someone will read one of my articles and it will inspire them as so many articles have inspired me. I've seen that especially this week as I've written my comprehensive exams.

I can also keep up with this blog to hopefully make my friends and family chuckle again. In other words, thanks for your comments. I appreciate them, and I'll do my best to continue to provide a few things to comment about. Feel free to let me know what you think. Just don't mention the mashed potatoes.

I vividly remember the first time I watched Cable TV. It was at my friend Scott Sivertson's house in high school, and I was glued to MTV and Headbanger's Ball. We made it a ritual to catch the show every weekend, and during commercials, I'd flip through all the channels hungrily just because there were so many from which to choose. I didn't think I'd ever get that feeling again, especially since we've decided to save money and time by not buying cable or dish while in Missouri. But some smart online research and some government and broadcast industry wisdom gave me that feeling over the weekend, as I watched the last half of the Colts / Bears game in stunning and FREE high definition.

We've had an HDTV for a couple of years now. It's a floor model from Circuit City that I dropped on the way home. It's scuffed on the side and it doesn't have a HDTV tuner, so I thought the best picture we'd get from it would be movies on the DVD player we have that upconverts regular movies. It's no Blu-Ray, but they still look pretty good.

With the impending switch to digital TV in February 2009, I started looking into what a HDTV receiver would cost. I'd heard you could get 2 HDTV channels for free over the airwaves in Columbia, but I'd also seen that HDTV receivers were more than $200. So I went to eBay and did a little research. It seems you can get old DirecTV, Dish and Voom receivers that are unlocked for a fraction of the price to receive over the air-broadcasts. I settled on a HiSense receiver that I guess used to be sold in Walmart and eagerly awaited shipping.

I received it Saturday and eagerly hooked it up. It was easy, even if our video cabinet caused some cord tangling issues. Thankfully Lincoln could climb behind the cabinet to push cords through the right holes. All he had to do was hook the coaxial cable from our rabbit ear antenna to the box and then hook component video and audio cables from the the TV to the box.

He climbed out, we flipped it on, and let it go to work. Within minutes we were watching Notre Dame struggle against San Diego State in stunning color and clarity. We were also pleasantly surprised by the new extra channels we received. For the first time since we moved out of our apartment, we get PBS, and two channels - one in HD - to boot. Our children can watch Sesame Street again! Kalooo Kalaaaaay! We end up getting 11 channels total including all the networks (even the CW) and a couple of local religious channels. We get two 24-hour weather channels that I'm sure Merilee will enjoy when tornado season heats up again.

I know it seems silly, but this was exciting for our family, and I have to give credit where it's due. The digital switch may seem like a pain in the neck, but it opens up the broadcast spectrum for more and hopefully better program (not to mention the money the fed made by selling off part of the spectrum to broadcasters). In line with the theme of this blog, it ensures the airwaves remain democratic, that anyone with rabbit ears can get clear signals. While I understand the merits of cable and satellite TV, we need to ensure that people have access to broadcast signals, and not just crappy, fuzzy ones filled with ghosts. As much as broadcasting as moved away from its original public service mission, it still uses public airwaves and must ensure equal access to all.