The weeks reading focuses on the concept of ‘digital space’ and what it has become today. Völker discusses new programs available for your mobile phone that can immediately change the space you are in from digital to reality. This concept of phones almost being able to provide a digital space within in a virtual space highlights the vast degree to which technology plays in our lives. One of the programs, Socialight is a prime example of how technology is reforming digital spaces to reality. This program allows “interpersonal messages to be communicated via spaces” (Völker 2007:136). This highlights the drastic change in technology and reforms the concept of ‘digital space’ as we know it. Völker discusses that Socialight is transforming virtual reality and digital spaces to become physical reality.
This article highlights the possibility that virtual/digital spaces are rapidly becoming closer to reality and as such blurring the already shaky line between virtual spaces and reality. The use of cell phones already creates an impression that both a physical and virtual space has been created. When on a phone you are talking to someone who is not physically near you in any way, they may be 5 minutes away, or 5 hours, yet it doesn’t matter because in many ways you feel as though you are with them. I know that sometimes when you are on the phone and someone recalls a funny story to you about someone on their bus or train, you do feel as though you were there with them. This once again begins to blur the already hazy line.
Throughout the use of programs such as Socialight, which attaches virtual places (‘Sticky Shadow Messages’), which are then coordinated and given as a virtual representation of the physical place, is blurring the shaky line. This concept of mobile media and the space within which it occupies causes blurring lines and confusion about what is real and what is virtual. Indeed it seems as time goes on this concept is only to become more prominent and it won’t be too far into the future when the concept of virtual space and digital space will be lost forever, creating one universal space, that has become reality.

Throughout Shaun Moores writing he focuses on three main areas/events within which media can be seen as the ‘doubling of place’. Moores does discuss the fundamental point that it is physically impossible to actually be in two places at once, yet he says “broadcasting nevertheless permits a ‘live’ witnessing of remote happenings…” In this way Moores discusses crucial role media plays throughout our lives, giving us the feelings that we really are in two places at once.

Moores first example is a crucial one, in which Moore discusses the funeral of much loved Princess Diana. The response of the pubic has been crucial to the findings; many people disrupted their daily routines in order to watch this monumental event ‘live’. Thus in turn gives the public a feeling of ‘being there’. I agree with Moores argument within the concept. Indeed when one does watch a ‘live’ program, you are much more likely to feel as though you are physically there, even though you’re most likely at home on the couch. Indeed it is this feeling on being in two places at once that prompts on to watch the ‘live’ show, instead of the later show. This funeral brings about a question raised by Turnock, “how is it possible to grieve over someone you’ve never met?” This is a question that does not have any one answer, it can be seen that people form emotional attachments to their favourite stars, regardless of whether they have met them or not. The death of Diana can more recently be compared to the death of Heath Ledger, though many people did not ‘personally’ know Ledger, people still grieved over his death.

Moores second example relates to the internet. Moores describes the Internet as part or everyday life. The Internet can be described as an ‘alternate’ world, within which one can vary their personality, their appearance and even their gender. Indeed being on the Internet in chat rooms, or ‘virtual pubs’ as Moore puts it can make people feel as though they are in two places at one time. Turkle (1996a: 14) proposes that people can now exist in ‘many roles’ within ‘many worlds’ and the ‘same time’

Moores third example discuss the link between mobile telephones and the doubling of place. Indeed one can become so wrapped up in their conversations that they do forget where they actually are. A prime example of one being in two places whilst on the phone occurs at music concerts. I know, from past experiences, that if a friend could not make it to a concert of one of their favourite bands and another friend was able to go, the agreement was that the friend would call them during their favourite song. This is turn makes the non-attendee feel as though they are at that concert, even if it is for a brief second. The story Moores presents in relation to the young women speaking to her boyfriend, may give the lady the impression that she is physically with her boyfriend, even though she is on a train.

Overall I agree with most of the arguments that Moores discusses, it would seem in this day and age that indeed many technologies can make us feel as though we are at the place either described, shown or heard to us, even though it is quite clear that we are somewhere else.

The article entitled “Media Studies 2.0” written by David Gauntlett on the 24th February 2007, then revised further in March of 2007 express the concept that to continue progressing towards the future one needs to update their media studies. In the article Gauntlett contrasts the new Media 2.0 and its meaning to the “still popular traditional method”.

Gauntlett expresses the Media 1.0 is still highly popular and the most dominant teachings throughout many schools and universities. Gauntlett’s treatment of Media Studies 1.0 is portrayed in a more negative light than that of Media Studies 2.0. Gauntlett says that the alternative, which is Media Studies 2.0 is “characterised by a rejection” of most of Media Studies 1.0 characteristics. Gauntlett expresses the need for a new Media Studies to replace existing tendencies. In Media Studies 1.0, the concept of celebrating key texts produced by the powerful media industries has been revised in Media Studies 2.0 to incorporate many “independent media projects” including those on YouTube.

Gauntlett himself states that the “attempt to specify ‘Media Studies 1.0’ and ‘2.0’ is merely an attempt to clarify the shift”. It is this way that I agree with Gauntlett’s article, which is stating that media is constantly changing and although old media is still referred to it is the new and improved media that needs to be understood by all generations. Gauntlett refers to the end of the 20th century as a time when the media was unsure of what it could comment on anymore, and as Gauntlett clearly states, “Thank goodness the Web came along”. I completely agree with this statement, as it is the introduction of the Web that has helped the Media to expand and further express the opinions of everyone. I find that the introduction of the Web has become a way for all people to express an opinion on virtually anything, without having to appear on national television or writing to a newspaper, these opinions can be expressed with a certain degree of privacy being upheld. Gauntlett discusses several examples of Media Studies 2.0 in practice, including a more active participation in things such as Campaigns Wikia, which is based on the concept that “If broadcast media brought us broadcast politics, then participatory media will bring us participatory politics”. I personally found Gauntlett’s article to provide a serious insight into what Media Studies is becoming and how it’s concept of change is integral to providing a future for Media all over the world.