Your mind, your choice - Book Banning Activist Project

If you want to read a book, you can just go to a local library and get it, right? Well sadly in some cases the answer to this is no, you can’t. For decades people have petitioned to get books removed from library shelves, and even bookstores. They say these books are too violent, to sexual, or contain satanic references. Many of the books most frequently banned in the late 20th and early 21st century are among such popular works of literature as the Catcher in the Rye, The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn and the Harry Potter Series. All over the country, and in fact all over the world, many people, often concerned parents, try to limit everyone’s access to certain information. This includes whoever may be reading this blog.

This has become so prevalent that the last week of September is now Banned Books Week. The dates for this week in 2009 are September 26 to October 3, and the purpose of this week is to celebrate the freedom everyone has to not only have their own ideas, no matter how crazy, but also to have access to a wide variety of ideas, even those contradictory to their own. “One of the most cherished freedoms in a democracy is the right to freely participate in the “marketplace of ideas.” (Stauber and Rampton). This marketplace of ideas is not possible if people keep taking books off the shelves, denying people access to great works of literature simply because they deem them to be inappropriate. In many cases these challenged books are not banned because officials in charge of such decisions realize that we have the right to information. Many books, however, are banned, and some people have that right taken away from them.

Banned book week started in the states 27 years ago to remind Americans not to take for granted the fact that they have the freedoms to read whatever they want. It has spread into other democratic countries because they all take for granted how unique the enormous access to information they have actually is. There are very few places in the world where you can read books presenting such a variety of viewpoints. Yet in North America especially, we take that freedom for granted until someone tries to take it away in the form of book banning. “Granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a culture.” (Lessig, 185). One of the wonderful things about our culture is the large collection of information we have, and the fact that everyone can access it. When book banning starts to happen, that is no longer true.

So the important question is, how can we help? What can we do to stop book banning from happening? One good thing to do is to read frequently banned books yourself, or recommend them to your friends. The list of 100 most banned books of the 1990s is a good resource for this. Stay informed; make sure you know if a piece of literature is being challenged at your local library “The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom estimates they learn of only 20 to 25 percent of book challenges. Let us know if there is a challenge in your community. Find out what the policy is for reviewing challenged materials at your school or public library.”(American Library Association) There is also the Intellectual Freedom Action News (IFACTION) e-list, which is good to join if you want to show your support. The most important thing is to get the word out. Tell everyone you know how important the freedom to read what you’d like is. Write letters to the mayor or your MPP or MP telling them how important the freedom to read and asking them to proclaim “Banned Books Week – Celebrating the Freedom to Read.” This blog for me was the first step in doing my part; anyone who reads this blog will have gotten the message, and will hopefully pass it on.

"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship."--George Bernard Shaw, Preface to Mrs. Warren's Profession

Works Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York, USA: The Penguin Press, 2004.

Stauber, John, and Rampton, Sheldon. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lie and the Public Relations Industry. 1st ed. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995.

"Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read." ALA - American Library Association. 2008. American Library Association. 22 Nov 2008 .

Prank? Advertisment? - Culture Jamming

Where do we find advertisements? Do we find them on TV, billboards, in magazines? The true answer is they’re everywhere. Every step you take when walking outside is a step bombarded with images telling you to buy something. It seems like every message we get is concerned with what product we have to get next. It seems issues that really cause suffering, such as homelessness, poverty, and human rights violations are pushed away by this rush to consume. “Many public issues and social voices are pushed to the margins of society by market values and commercial communication, making it difficult to get the attention of those living in the "walled gardens" of consumerism.” (CCCE, 1). Culture jamming was created as a kind of a way to remedy this problem. Those who participate in culture jamming say that since society is saturated with branded images or icons, they will use these same branded images as vehicles for their social messages.

Take the image above right for example.



Everyone is familiar with the logo for FedEx. It symbolizes a way to get packages quickly from one place to another. Anyone who sees this logo will automatically make this identification. One could argue that this logo constitutes a symbol which “are the images we use to represent concepts, ideas and philosophies.” (McCloud, 27) If that is the case, then what is the original FedEx logo really trying to represent? FedEx reinforces the consumer culture that culture jamming is trying to represent; it implies that what we need is lots and lots of stuff, and we need to get it fast. Culture jamming attempts to make this true ideology so transparent that someone viewing this image would question what FedEx is really about.

FedUp – With excess: a simple statement but it has much greater implications. Firstly it makes clear that FedEx is contributing to our culture of excess. No longer does great distance from the products we want to buy prevent us from buying them. FedEx allows us to buy anything from anywhere in the world, and get it quickly. “Many culture Jams are simply aimed at exposing questionable political assumptions behind commercial culture so that people can momentarily consider the branded environment in which they live. (CCCE, 1).” This is exactly what this culture jam will do. People who see it almost have no choice but to stop and think. They will ask themselves, what does this mean? Why is it written? Culture jamming requires people to actually think, and come to the realization that we live with excess everyday, and FedEx and other companies will contribute to its continuation unless we let it be known that we are fed up.

Culture jamming is one of the most effective ways to get the message out there on social issues. Sure, whoever is responsible for this culture jam could have written a page about how FedEx contributes to over consumption and how that is so. The problem with doing things in writing is that it doesn’t catch peoples’ attentions. People are more likely to pay attention and be affected by things that are visual, as opposed to written. “Pictures, to be sure, are more imperative than writing; they impose meaning at one stroke, without analyzing or diluting it.” (Barthes, 110) In using this familiar logo to get the message across it is even more effective. People already have context when it comes to the FedEx logo. There are already particular associations produced so that one viewing this message in the form of a culture jam would be more likely to understand it.

I leave you with this comic about culture jamming, which will hopefully remind you that viewing culture jams is only the first step. The next step must be doing something, even something small, to spread awareness about social issues. It is also important to remember that culture jamming isn’t about going against corporations, but about bringing to light their issues.

















Works Cited


McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. 1st. New York, USA: HarperPerennial, 1994


Barthes, Roland. Mythologies . 1. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.


"Culture Jamming and Meme Based Communication." Culture Jamming. Centre for Communication and Civic Engagement. 22 Nov 2008 http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm.

Images:

http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/06/07/fedupwith.jpg


http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/022407/culture-jamming.gif

Your Internet? No, it's MY Internet! No there's net neutrality!

Nobody really owns the Internet, right? I mean, how is it possible to own something so vast that contains such a large quantity of information?

Well the answer, for now, is that nobody owns the Internet. Anyone can put anything they want (and I do mean ANYTHING) online for little or no cost. There is a free flow of information, with the people producing the content no different than the people consuming it. If you wanted to video tape yourself talking about issues your passionate about while playing Sum 41 (totally random example), then put it on YouTube for millions of people to possibly see, then more power to you.

Such a thing would be impossible in the "traditional" media of television or newspaper. If you wanted to start a TV station, you'd need billions of dollars and a lot of help. All you need to post whatever you want on the Internet is a computer and an Internet connection. Big companies that used to be in charge of what media texts you consume, such as cable companies, saw that the Internet could give you for free much more than they could, and it scared the hell out of them. They saw that they were losing their control over the media, and they saw the Internet as an opportunity to regain that.

In essence, that is what net neutrality is. It makes you and me equals in terms of what we can access on the Internet, and what we can contribute. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ supplies a very practical definition. "Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination." Basically it's the principle that allows everyone equal access to the Internet.

After reading all this you might be thinking, as Ian Reilly often puts it:

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well don't worry, hopefully after my blog post, everything will be clear. Firstly, the Internet has tremendous possibilities to aid in democratic processes. In a democracy, anyone is allowed to think anything. With the Internet, these thoughts can be heard by the masses. The Internet makes it easier to get your message out there, but it also does something more. The Internet creates a participatory culture, a two way culture where the consumer, after consuming content, goes on to contribute. "the technologies of communication will serve to enlarge human freedom everywhere, to create inevitably a counsel of the people." (Stauber and Rampton, 195) With the technology available to us the common phrase 'by the people, for the people' takes on a whole new meaning. When there is net neutrality, the Internet becomes a platform for ideas in which truly anyone can participate.

There is, however, a darker side to this new realm of possibility. Corporations who fear losing their control over what kinds of content you see in the media are thinking of charging to post certain things online, or accessing certain websites. They want the Internet to function more like television in that what you get is very controlled and costs you money, and only a very elite group can have their voices heard. People who use the material that others have the copyright too are already being called "pirates" and "thieves". "My fear is that unless we come to see
this change, the war to rid the world of Internet “pirates” will also rid our culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start." (Lessig, 26) Here Lessig is referring to the right to free speech, and the fact that the government can't sensor any speech. He is, of course, against people blatantly using the copyrighted work of others. His fear, however, is the collapse of net neutrality. If you put restrictions on what one can or cannot do online, eventually no one will be able to do anything.

The biggest problem with the fact that net neutrality is threatened is that nobody knows about it. The fact that I'm posting this online, right now, for free, wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for net neutrality. Hopefully this blog entry at least gets the word out. Although I wouldn't say I'm IN love with the Internet, I do love it. I love it just the way it is, and I don't want it to change. If this keeps being an invisible issue the floodgates of information opened by the Internet will be closed forever.

Works Cited

"Frequently Asked Questions." Save the Internet: Fighting for Internet Freedom. Free Press Action Fund. 12 Nov 2008 http://www.savetheinternet.com/.

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York, USA: The Penguin Press, 2004.

Stauber, John, and Rampton, Sheldon. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lie and the Public Relations Industry. 1st ed. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995.

Unleash your Imagination with Participatory Culture

This is what it says under the website title of Fanfiction.net. Fanfiction is the writing of fictional stories based on the fictional world created in movies, TV shows, and books. I joined this website about 5 years ago when I decided to combine my love of writing with my love for the TV show Charmed. I always wanted certain things to happen next, or I had certain theories about what had happened, so I would write stories based on this. Fanfiction is also a great way to expand upon the world created by their favorite mediums.

In one of the largest categories of http://www.fanfiction.net/, the Harry Potter category, there are 377, 767 stories. It's possible to find many stories based on any fictional work in a variety of mediums. Some of these stories are horribly written, others can be considered masterpieces. Some stories are written by 13 year old middle schoolers, which is what I was when I started, and others are written by adults with full time jobs. The great thing about fanfiction is that it allows you to do more than passively enjoy a television show or a book. You can contribute, and participate to this medium that you love.

Fanfictions have been called by critics mere copying of an original work. Those who write fanfiction have been told they have no creativity, and they are merely stealing ideas from another writer. "The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated." (Benjamin, 3) In many cases, fanfiction has little to do with the actual stories being presented, and only borrow a certain element, always giving credit to the original author. Since fanfiction by definition comes from another work, it's usually not appreciated for its own merit. Fanfiction can be considered artwork all its own, but it is always tainted with its association with the original

When I write fanfiction, I often take advantage of the ambiguous and unknown factors that are always left in television shows. If a show starts with the characters being in their 20s, I use fanfiction to explore what they may have been like as teens. If the characters speak about going somewhere, but their journey isn't actually shown, I like to use fanfiction to explore their possible journey. "This phenomenon of observing the parts but perceiving the whole has a name. It's called closure" (McCloud, 63) We perform closure when watching television for example, because certain events are left out, but we are supposed to assume that they happened. "Nothing is seen between the two panels, but experiences tells you something must be there." (McCloud, 67). That thing that must be there but is never seen is what is hinted at by fanfiction.

Audiences rarely watch or read anything passively. There is always a thought process going on. It's common to theorize what might happen next week, or to try to make sense of what had happened. Fanfiction takes that one step further. You take all the what ifs and form them into your own creative stories. Fanfiction has also formed a kind of community. It's very easy to read other peoples' stories, give them feedback in the form of reviews, and for them to in return read your feedback and make changes. It is a way to both get your writing out there, and to actively engage in your favorite fiction universe.

Fanfiction would not exist if people just watched television or movies and accepted what they see. Everyone has questions or ideas about their favorite shows, because everyone creates their own meaning from media texts. "This current theory on audience reception in media studies takes into account the individual members of the audience. It realises there is a preferred meaning in the text, but also places emphasis on the audience in the process of constructing a meaning." (Hanes) Writing stories based on media texts is just yet another way to create meaning from texts.

Fanfiction.net once said "Unleash your Imagination, and Free Your Soul." This is the perfect definition for the purpose of participatory culture. Fanfiction is more than something based on an original work; it's a way to let lose all of your creativity.

Works Cited

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. 1st. New York, USA: HarperPerennial, 1994

Walter, Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" http://academic.evergreen.edu/a/arunc/compmusic/benjamin/benjamin.pdf

Hanes, Philip J. "The Advantages and Limitations of a Focus on Audience in Media Studies." April 2000. 5 Nov 2008 http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/pph9701.html.

We are (more than) what we Buy

I want, I need, I get.

That's the focus of society today. Without the latest "thing" we are effectively left behind in the societal race. We are never satisfied with the "stuff" that we have, so that's what we want: More stuff. I doubt I could go more than one day without buying something, and even that one day is a little hard. Buying nothing means no coffee, no fast food, no bus tokens. Difficult, but it can be done. In fact, on Friday, November 28, 2008, it is Buy Nothing Day.

This is the day after American Thanksgiving, which is traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year. Many argue that one day of not buying anything won't make a difference to the alarming over consumption practiced routinely in North America today. They're right, it doesn't make much of a difference. However, adbusters, who started the day said ""isn't just about changing your habits for one day" but "about starting a lasting lifestyle commitment to consuming less and producing less waste."

But what makes a change in consuming habits really necessary? I mean, what makes our consumerism so bad? Well maybe you'll see the necessity for a day to buy nothing by watching this youtube video.









We are told to buy things all the time, whether from commercials by companies wanting to make money, or by politicians who tell us it will help the economy. In fact, it is the over consumption practiced in North America that leads to an excess of waste, and a lack of focus on the things that really matter.

Firstly, if there is such a dependence on money and what one can buy in society, there is a class division that increases between the haves and have nots. Suddenly people who can afford to buy all the latest products is somehow better than those who cannot. It is almost impossible to break out of this cycle, because the majority of people will only listen to those with power, and in a society of consumption, those who have the power also have the money.

"they come from a small section of the bourgeoisie itself, from a minority group of artists and intellectuals, without public other than the class which they contest, and who remain dependent on its money in order to express themselves." (Barthes, 139)

The only way to fight against our tendency to buy much more than we need for no good reason is to recognize our dependence on our possessions, and make a constant effort to buy less. So next time you're really tempted to buy that latest cell phone even though you have one that works perfectly fine, or that new iPod just because everyone else has one, it's important to ask yourself one simple question. Do I really need that? Why do I need that. If you realize that you have no good reason, maybe it's better not to buy.

Those who often have the most need for such basic things such as food, shelter, and medication, are often those who consume the least. "those who most need the mass produced goods- and this includes food, medicine, and clothing - do not have the means to purchase the very items they often make." (Franklin, 162) It is very telling that the places that have the most need for necessities, such as India, South America, and Africa, consume the least. While here, in North America, we need the least, yet we consume the most

So no, you do not need whatever that latest thing you saw on TV is. In fact, if you think of it, very little of what you have you actually need. Would anybody actually die without their laptop? They wouldn't die, they just might be a little upset. Buy nothing day is to give us some perspective about the amount of consumerism that we do, and how damaging it could be. If we go for a day without relying on our dependence consuming, maybe we could go two or three, or even cut down on our consumption on a daily basis. We are more than what we buy.

You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy. ~Eric Hoffer

Works Cited

"Buy Nothing Day." Wikipedia. 24 Oct 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day.

"Buy Nothing Day." Adbusters. Adbusters. 24 Oct 2008 http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd.

Barthes, Roland. Mythologies . 1. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.

Franklin, Ursula M. The Real World of Technology. Scarborough, ON: Anansi Press, 1990.

Just a Spoon Full of Interpellation Helps the Hegemony go Down

What do you think of when you see this symbol? Well, if you’re like me, having grown up loving Disney movies, and not afraid of admitting to still watching them, you think of magic and wonder. This Disney logo has come to symbolize a childhood innocence. This sign has a hegemonic meaning; no one would mistake it for symbolizing evil, and it brings us back to an innocent age where animals could talk and there was always a prince charming.

In many ways, we were all interpellated by Disney. In simply seeing this symbol, everyone makes an instantaneous identification, perhaps of their favourite Disney movie or their best childhood memory, but always a positive one. Disney has called to us, and we have responded with a sense of joy. Because of this, we are now a subject to their ideology, and the beliefs of Disney become our own. If there beliefs are that everyone can be a kid again and the world can be magical, then why is that something to be concerned about?

The answer lies in the fact that few people perceive of Disney as a very powerful corporation. Disney holds a lot of power, both in its influence, and in the vast amount they own. The way that they hold on to this power is through their illusion that they don’t have any; that they are there to create joy in children. This association with their symbol as something positive is intentional on the part of Disney. “The mythical signification, on the other had, is never arbitrary; it is always in part motivated and unavoidably contains some analogy.” (Barthes, 126)

Disney doesn’t want the public to fear them so the fact that they’re a multi billion dollar corporation who owns a lot of things is pretty much hidden. What does Disney actually own? I had no idea, so I used my newly developed Internet research skills (HOLLA Internet Survey and Research Class) to find out.

“ABC, ABC Family, ABC Kids, Walt Disney Distribution, Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Disney Channel, ESPN, Jetix, Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Walt Disney Television Animation, Walt Disney Records, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films, ABC Studios, Playhouse Disney, Disney Consumer Products, Pixar, Soapnet, Disney Interactive Studios, Muppets Holding Company, Disney Store, Toon Disney, New Horizon Interactive, and Hollywood Records also owns Disney Cruise which they have their own a private island called castaway cay. They also have their own radio station network called radio Disney which is distributed in Canada, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina and of course United States” (WikiAnswers)

That’s a very long and impressive list, and it’s definitely not finished. This definitely isn’t the first thing anyone thinks of when thinking of Disney or looking at their logo. Media conglomerations such as these put the power for a lot of different organizations into very few hands. If conglomerations such as these keep existing, eventually everything we see or hear will be controlled and moderated by one group. Those small groups will, in effect, control public opinion, and more importantly, have the largest influence on consumer habits, generating a large profit.

“As the media conglomerates spread their tentacles, there is reason to believe they will encourage popular tastes to become more uniform in at least some forms of media. Based on conversations with Hollywood executives, Variety editor Peter Bart concluded that "the world filmgoing audience is fast becoming more homogeneous." (McChesney, 3)

I’m pretty sure we’re not all going to become robots, but the possibility of tastes becoming more uniform is so very real. With all of these media companies interconnected, they will be telling us we’re supposed to like the same thing. With all of the messages the same it creates an enormous hegemony in media ideas that is virtually invisible. Different symbols, such as the Disney logo, make this conglomeration appear to not have the power that it does. No technology is neutral, and with conglomerations, their influence is magnified until it reaches many more people.

“with a few notable exceptions, the journalism reserved for the masses tends to be the sort of drivel provided by the media giants on their US television stations. This slant is often quite subtle.” (McChesney, 3)

Disney and other corporations like it with media hegemony use this subtlety in their slant to hide their power. This relatively meaningless information reaches a large number of people, and it holds little evidence of any censorship. Disney isn’t some evil corporation and it truly makes people happy; but it has a certain aspect of control over the media that can’t be ignored. It may be a small world after all, but it’s a world full of big conglomerates with lots of power.

Works Cited

McChesney , Robert. "The New Global Media - It's a Small World of Big Conglomerates." The Nation 11 Nov 1999 1-3. 17 Oct 2008 .

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991129/mcchesney/3

"WikiAnswers." What does Disney Own? 17 Oct 2008 .

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_disney_own

Barthes, Roland. Mythologies . 1. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.

Propaganda - Not Worth the Risk

As Ursula M. Franklin said, "Let me begin now, like any good academic, with definitions." (Franklin, 5)

So first, let me attempt to define what propaganda is, with help from http://www.dictionary.com/

noun
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

This is the most general definition I could find. I find it interesting that rumors are included. That means that although propaganda can be factual, that isn't always the case. It is also interesting that it says help or harm, because for me propaganda has always had a negative connotation. In fact, when thinking of propaganda, slander is one of the other words that come to mind. Even before I knew about complex words and ideas, somehow I knew, or was taught, that propaganda was a bad thing. So if everyone knows propaganda=wrong, then what makes it so powerful?

I think its power lies in its ambiguity, and its difficulty to identify. Propaganda isn't a commercial that blatantly says "See those other people? They totally suck, and therefore we don't!" Even though that is in essence what propaganda does, it's a little subtler, which is the only way people would ever listen to it. If you thought that propaganda was a fair and balanced representation of the facts, you'd be more likely to listen to it.

Another power that propaganda has is to take advantage of the medium in which it is presented. Remember how you're not supposed to believe everything you see/hear/watch on TV? Well, propaganda is part of the reason for that. Despite this common warning, we are much more likely to believe something because it has been in such a powerful medium as the television. We think, not anything can be on TV, right? So if this thing was on TV, it just has to be true.

Any message that tells us how to live or what to do can be considered propaganda. More than ever, we are likely to accept what we are told through the media without question, which makes propaganda more dangerous. "...we live in a culture of compliance, that we are ever more conditioned to accept orthodoxy as normal, and to accept that there is only one way of doing "it"." (Franklin, 17) We are used to accepting what the media says without question, but we are even more used to accepting what people in power say without question. If the Prime Minister told you something was true, depending on your opinion of politics, you might be more likely to believe him than some average person. This is why political propaganda is the most commonly used, and successful. Take this message sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada for example, that ran several times a day on most television stations.




All this video is basically saying is Stephane Dion sucks. Not that I think that, but that's what this video wants me to think. It lists all of the apparent bad things about Stephane Dion, but it isn't that it offers no proof that bothers me. What bothers me is though it was sponsored by the Conservative Party, it doesn't mention them once. It doesn't say why they would be any better. This "everybody sucks but me" attitude falls under the "deliberately harm" part of the definition of propaganda. I'm sure everyone who ever watches TV, even a little, has seen this by now. We all know that all parties engage in attack campaigns such as these, but this is the most widespread and blatant one in the current election

"To what extent does a medium contribute to the development of democratic processes?" (Postman)

In this case, commercials, such as this one, can greatly harm democratic process. It causes the focus to shift from what politicians will do (or at least, say they will do) to what is little more than slander of their opponent. Propaganda has taken the amazing power of many media, such as television, to reach a large number of people who will believe the message, and twisted it into something only about gain.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for yet. I'll probably decide what to do when I get there. Personally, minimal attacking of the opponent is one of my many criteria. This post isn't to say I'm against any one candidate. I just don't care what other people haven't done. When I attempt to be an informed voter, all I care about is what the candidates say they will do.

Propaganda in Canadian politics? - Definitely not worth the risk.

Works Cited

Neil Postman, "The Humanism of Media Ecology"
http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/MEA_proceedings/v1/humanism_of_media_ecology.html

Franklin, Ursula M. The Real World of Technology. Scarborough, ON: Anansi Press, 1990.