I don't know if you have been following the news? I usually don't, but on Tuesday evening someone posted a link on Facebook, in relation to the nine hours detention at Heathrow airport of a Brazilian national,named David Miranda. Now, I find these story and many that have been published, has perfect examples to week 4 reading, in this case the Mcneill essay and one of Dr Van Ludyn (2013)conclusion on network narratives, she stated that the internet allows for mash-ups,re-edits and collaborate like no other form can.
In David Miranda case, the story had so many different themes,plots and narrations given to it by the many media narrators, but in the midst of all the different interpretations of the story, I noticed one thing, that the subject and the setting did not change, the subject was still Mr Miranda and the setting was still Heathrow airport.The use of control and power by the various narrators,the flow of information pour to the public was unrestricted, I believed this was for the purpose of engaging our humanists side so that we would become interactive beings by adding our opinions or comments ,in my case on the Facebook page dedicated to the subject, and so,adding up to his biography,making his story not only '' His'' but ''Ours''(Mcneill 2012).I concluded, narratives could be told through different ways and means,they do not have to stop at one, ,they can be connected and continued between the many social network.Their structures and narratives processes can also change according to different network,like in Mr Miranda's case,in other words, the process can still change as the structures of different media,such as books,comics and other hypermedia decide to narrate this story.
References
Mcneill.L(2012) There is No I in Network: Social Networking Sites and Post Human Auto/ Biography
I found this blog very interesting as I am a student of the Law. Mr Miranda was supposedly detained at Heathrow airport under anti-terrorism laws, laws incorrectly used.The anti-terrorism laws used legally allow authorities to detain a person for suspicion. The Shadow Home Secretory stated that "We still don't know on whose legal advice this crucial decision was taken to use terrorism powers." His story is quite frustrating, and some-what confusing, why was the information he possessed confiscated if he was not accused of terrorism? and under who's authority? You are correct in saying that many different publishers and journalists have jumped on the chance to twist a story. How twisted can 'his' story become before it is no longer really 'his' story, but everyone's?
ReplyDeleteHis narrative and his identity was questioned thoroughly and deeply for the purpose of confirming 'his' identity. If we can't prove the truth of our identity then what is the point of having our own identity? This reminds me of the relational effect of power in week three's reading by Allen, J. (2003), "power is not some ‘thing’ or attribute that can be possessed, I do not believe either that it can flow; it is only ever mediated as a relational effect of social interaction.”