Ok, I’ve read through extensively and would like to make a few more substantive comments. I am an academic, I do many reviews for journal articles, I am not intending to be harsh or hyper critical, If the authors (since this is an open review) feel slighted or angry my deep and sincere apologies.Originally Posted by Jack
Now for the long knives.
First opinion: The article is well constructed with an adequate if opinionated and biased review of the literature. Contrary examples and an obvious lack of understanding of the deeper technologies involved and societal adoption mechanisms for technology are woefully missing. The literature review appears to have a high selectivity bias and “cherry picking” of particular cases that underlie the primary themes.
The title new media refers extensively to concepts and ideas that are actually rather old. Though popular mythos suggests that the blogosphere and Web 2.0 technologies and user cases are relatively new they actually extend to the beginnings of the Internet and the original collaboration models that spawned the Internet.
The second paragraph (page 1) has a laundry list of basic assumptions, criticism, and detailed analysis of the problem space and not one citation to back the assertions up. If this were an academic paper that I was reviewing this abstract it would go back to be re-worked and supported by evidence rather than supposition even if that supposition is backed up by common understanding.
Once the authors on page 2 get into the problem statement citations begin to appear. Yet within the problem statement bias is heavily weighted. As a paper I can only assume advocacy is the primary mission of the article and put bias and selectivity up on the shelf again ignoring it other than to note it as I did as a pervasive theme.
Just say no to using “Furthermore, although....” the use of high intensity written gymnastics on web forums is fun, but should be slashed from serious writing.
Discussing the global information environment (page 3) in the first paragraph several opinions are detailed that may be erroneous. Content creation is mixed with tools and slowly baked over a set of communication strategies. Contrarian examples to the proposed issues are as simplistic as convergence. The global information environment is not growing it is shrinking to a singular set of devices and allowing for richer, faster content creation. The global information environment could be said to becoming more streamlined. Contrary assumptions to what appears to be an argument of megalithic growth. Perhaps a better term than growth or shrinkage would be resilient. Though a semantical deconstruction it shows a particular point of view that may be missing the changes that have happened to media. The media conglomerate with centralized management and practices is being pushed around by the decentralized highly resilient blogosphere. The blogosphere rather than being something new is a return to the decentralized localized news reporting that was dominate for the first two centuries of American politics.
Figure 1 may be from doctrinal documents but it should be replaced fast. It mixes a set of concepts and strategies that are recursively referential at different levels. See JP-3-13 for a detailed understanding of why I would disagree with it.
Quick note: Isn’t the 2006 National Security Strategy as cited a classified or FOUO document? Was the unclassified version used instead and if so wouldn’t the citation reflect that? I’m truly not sure about this.
Page 4, column two second paragraph. At this point convergence is finally discussed but it would appear that two different authors never coordinated between this section and earlier sections.
Page 5, is DIME still the primary model used by JFCOM?
Defining connectivity (page 6) using Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary? Missing context and so many opportunities to do it better.
Page 6 - 9 is a detailed discussion about the different media formats and it transitions all the way through Web 2.0. There is a bit of an issue with stopping there at Web 2.0 (a buzzword to be sure). What about the next step? Lots of people are trying to claim vision into the Web 3.0 world from semantic web to final convergence scions. The point that is missed is the social implications rather than the information implications take on a new meaning. Few forward thinkers are considering the social changes implicit in adoption of technologies. Here on SWJ/C there is an entire thread discussing various enthusiasms for the rejection of technology (military technocentricity) carried out through a variety of communication technologies. The irony still eludes the various posters.
Page 11 starting with recommendations. The first paragraph means what? A buzzword laden discussion is fun, but it links together various concepts and ideas but it is hardly a recommendation.
Page 12 Organization and structure from the second column. The DOD should create a news organization? Haven’t you argued fairly consistently that those agencies are failing and being replaced and you offer up this? The authors go on to suggest new media methods, but they should have either started with that, or been more consistent with their message.
Criticism is not meant to be accepted or rejected but considered as part of the process of communication and understanding. With all the above criticism and several pages of notes that aren’t included for brevity I can still say the document makes an interesting case. The actual purpose though discussed up front may not have been fully achieved by the time the conclusion occurs. However, it still shows maturity within the realm of new media (sic) on the parts of the authors. Which is refreshing.
Bookmarks