Sep 27 2010
Blurring of reality and virtuality – a question of trust?
I’ve just been reading Plot off the Press, an article by Patrick Kingsley, in G2 about the fabulous Paddlesworth Press. Simply put, a group of people have worked hard to create the village of Paddlesworth (named after a real village by the same name), together with characters and back-story. This all leads up to the announcement by asto-physicist and local resident Major Robert Fitzroy-Howard that the world is going to be destroyed by solar flares in two to three months (ie. by around December this year).
What is fascinating is that so much work has gone into creating the backstory, of the village, the characters and the evidence of the solar flare issue. Twitter accounts, weblinks to information, MySpace and Facebook profiles – everything is there. Some characters have also responded on the Guardian’s website saying that the article is an example of “jawdropping incompetence” – classic!
Co-founder, Stephen Eisenhammer says it is an exploration of the “creative possibilities” of the internet. His partner David Story, says this is also an examination of our “misguided” trust in the web.
I’m now following the major on Twitter and am fascinated to see how this works itself out towards the end of the year. I’m also very impressed with the quality and work that has gone into it, and the attention to detail (eg. the characters commenting on G2 – simple but genius!).
It links through to my earlier mention of Channel 4’s Seven Days – again, the founders are allowing “readers to influence events by voting on village decisions”. I thought it was interesting how Seven Days started in the same week as my lifestream, but it didn’t interest me enough to get involved. This does though 
Why the difference??
11 responses so far
I hadn’t heard of the Paddlesworth Press before, but it looks great. Having looked at the site, I also had to smile at their approach to the Guardian article, and how they discredited the claims of fiction by suggesting that the Guardian writers were jealous of their solar flare scoop. Without trying to sound pompous, I see it as a clever social mirror to today’s media, and as a demonstration that we often have no idea of what is real or what is not.
Further to the last, it seems that the involvement that the public can have is also really appealing. By following characters on Facebook and Twitter, we can find out snippets that less dedicated viewers would not. Allowing different levels of interactivity is likely to be a true difference between something like this being portrayed in cyberspace as opposed to playing as a pre-recorded soap on TV (as it probably could have been a few years ago).
I agree with you Mark, on both counts
What interests me is how I’m drawn more to the Paddlesworth created situation than the “real-life” Seven Days.
Is it that we are perhaps getting to the point where we don’t completely trust all “reality” shows/websites/blogs and just go with the best story? Or is that just me
Is it about trust versus entertainment (and is that possible, am I making sense 
)?
Hi Sharon, I certainly don’t trust reality TV shows as I certainly believe that what is portrayed is a very cleverly edited version of the truth to encourage us to believe that a particular celebrity/polititian (for example) has acted in a certain way, and should therefore be voted in/out. Sometimes I am happy to be entertained by such shows, but like you say, trust is a very different matter. In fact I can’t actually think of anything portrayed in a digital medium that I wholeheartedly trust (barring diagnostic machinery). I think it was John Dunn who said “There is no innocent account of what a society really is”
Good quote! It is interesting that, by creating something that is openly untrue, we can relax and appreciate it for what it is rather than what it is trying to “sell us”
Segment today in Observer magazine ties this up nicely: http://bit.ly/cfwTrE – digital skepticism and “fine ears for the bogus”. But will this, in the end, just leave us more separated?
Hi Sharon,
picking up on your point: ‘we can relax and appreciate it for what it is rather than what it is trying to “sell us” makes me think about some of Carpenter’s arguements in relation to how popular culture and classroom genres intersect via the interface of technology. You are critically minded enough not to trust the site but are others.
On the other hand – who are the ‘composers’ of this charade? Are they expert academics? if not – they are demonstrating impressive academic literacies are they not? persuasive arguement, expertise, interactivity, potential global audience multivoicedness, structural linking and so Carpenter would argue that we don’t mind the gap but critically mind the boundaries… Which is what I think you are doing and why the real seven days site bears less interest for you than the construct of the Paddlesworth Press…
intriging…
Ooooh I agree, that’s a great point Alison! I did think this was a good example of an electronic text, a hybrid – the global audience, interactivity etc., and was planning to put that quote of Alice Trupe in my Tumblr, as I found it really helpful.
When he’s talking about Bronwyn Williams’ work, Carpenter quotes Williams that students “displayed an understanding of the slipperiness of representation” – and that students instinctively knew more than they realise, but still lack that “critical awareness”.
It’s encouraging to know that, like Williams’ students, I also spent ages “tweaking” my page
Hasn’t representation always been a bit ’slippery’? Not sure the digital representation is any more less trustworthy than the analogue one. Look at the history in history books! Is manipulated truth more palatable if done by those ‘in authority’?
“Is manipulated truth more palatable if done by those ‘in authority’?”
Hi Noreen – more palatable I dont think so, sounds more like propaganda to me and yes you are right history has been distorted by those who recorded it, even from as far back as Seneca and proberbly before that!
I’ve just been reading through the transcript from Group 1 on Wednesday Noreen, and you mention “the authority of the author” there and it was something I was thinking about here too.
It is a relatively new concept that we all have the opportunity to be authors and reach a relatively wide group. Not so long ago, to be a “recognised” author meant having the backing of a publishing company, self-publishing carried little weight and online open-source peer-reviewed options didn’t exist.
In this case, the students have the awareness that their representation as “authors” must be as clear as possible, have as little change of being “misrepresented” – they were conscious that the information that they shared was “out there” to be read (and repurposed?) by others.
Is digital more slippery because of how it can be mixed up? Of the random connections that can be made? Is it a case of “more slippery” not because of the actions of the author, but of how that work can then be manipulated? With hardcopy textbooks, we can trace misquotes back to the original, with the vagaries of online information, links can fail, images can be digitally altered and reused, etc.
For sure, those in authority are still manipulating the truth, even the students are doing so when constructing the “image” they want to share with the world, but now the manipulation’s gone digital too