‘It requires no small intellectual effort to realise that this is a fact that now is, and not one that has been.’ ~The New York Herald.
The entirety of the world was set to a standstill when the idea of immediate communication across land and sea was created. The idea of NOW. Throughout history, advancements in technology have allowed us to communicate more so effectively with people on a national, international and global scale. The ideas are limitless is what you could say, in regards to with who or with what we communicate with in the future (Aliens. Definitely aliens).
The idea of this real time communication network influenced the people of the 1900s to the 1920s in how they communicated with each other. It also changed their interests and popular culture, news and sports could be relayed immediately via noise communication. It was a revolution that you could hear someone without seeing them. This kind of experience would have been unknown, individuals became interested in far away places, different cultures and ways of living, different places.
To relate it to a modernised way of living, it would be as if twitter just added their trending system. Individuals would be able to see what hard hitting events are going on around the world live. The feeling of inclusion and comradery between the whole world, that is what these people felt.
However, this idea of NOW was not so widely appreciated by all. It meant that information could be relayed quickly and easily, it was revolutionary for communication but was the world becoming too small, too fast for individuals of the time to become immersed in it?
The New York Times, 1858, had criticism saying that this way of communication was ‘Too fast for the truth.’ which could be identified to this communication being foreign and being way to quick for the people of the time. So is it really a positive that the world is becoming a tighter series of networks?
krisesandchrosses 
The increasing innovation in the area of communication throughout the twentieth century (and up until now) has dynamically changed the way societies interact both with one another and within themselves. You touched upon this idea when you mentioned how the communication revolution pushed people to become interested and intrigued by other cultures. To build on this, you could discuss is the lasting impacts of the cultural influences being driven at the time. Your post got me thinking about the roots of Americanisation and issues of cultural homogeneity, which could be seen as the lasting impacts of the initial exposure to other cultures. This source (http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-16_u-185_t-493_c-1813/nsw/geography/global-change/globalisation/the-role-of-technology-in-globalisation) makes the point that communications have revolutionised societies, providing a nice link between the key ideas you have mentioned. If you look at this through a McLuhan lens, you can see how different technological mediums have drastically influenced the constitution of communities.
Great post overall, very succinct and informative, and your meme was hilarious!
– Claire
LikeLiked by 1 person
Changes with the global communication landscape will always have sceptics. Those who long for things to stay the same, because that is the reality they have always know. The exact same sentiments accompany the objections to globalisation. A fear of change and the fear of the ‘other.’ The world as we know it, with borders, masses of oceans and land separating us, is becoming a relic of the past. The global communication landscape has no time for limitations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are always mixed opinions when something new happens, it’s natural, The emergence of cyberspace is a huge thing, and when it came into life, suspicion was unavoidable. But revolution happened because of human, it is created by human to serve human’s demand. Adapting to and accepting the advancements (to make the world a tighter network) is natural. But changes need time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Relating the first communication methods to modern ones like Twitter is a really good way of creating a comparison, and helping people to better understand how communication worked in the past. I also find it interesting that you mention that people weren’t always accepting of the new technologies in the past as I believe that this is still true today with the continual developments of cyberspace as well as modern forms of communication. Do you also think that people aren’t always accepting of new forms of communication and will this always be an issue as long as there are new forms of technology being created?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Kris! nice meeting you at the tutorial mate, big fan of your 5 second summary videos as well!. First off the meme is hilarious ahaha
This week’s topic personally was hard for me to understand completely, whilst I was aware of the content, it didn’t really hit, it was just a bunch of information about how forms of communication from the Telegraph up until the internet created a global nervous system. But after reading your post it became a lot easier and I think a big reason would be your use of the Twitter trending system and relating it to the topic, how it gives people a sense of inclusion, the same sense they felt with the telegraph and everything up to now.
Great post mate! see you at the tutorial!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting how people could not understand their message being digitised and instead though objects like soup could be sent over. If you think about it now, it is actually possible to send over soup. Sounds weird but hear me out. With our current technology you could send soup by ordering food in the country they are and have it sent to their door step. Only downfall would be that they would have to pay for it themselves but we can say it’s the thought that counts? #SoupWithLove. Another point I would like to talk about is we are receiving information way too fast. This can be an issue as sometimes all the facts are not there when the information is blasted out. This may cause more chaos then actually help people. At the same time, we can say that people in power may not like information being available so quickly to the public. A newspaper article can be bended around depending on who is controlling the flow of information. Compare to a bystander which was at the spot during the event and posting a live feed on what is happening. In that case people in power are unable to “bend” or control what is being shared around. Overall great post and love the memes!
LikeLike
It’s very interesting that you debate whether the world becoming a tighter network is a good thing, because it certainly does have its drawbacks. There’s no denying that advancements in technology have made us more impatient and much more demanding.
Love the blog post, by the way, and look forward to reading the next ones 🙂
LikeLike
That meme *insert applause here*
I wrote about a similar thing of how we are at the stage of transfering information but we are yet to venture into the physical tranfers. I found this news report that shows we are getting closer to achieving teleportation of physical things. This also does mean once teleportation is created we can catch things in Pokeballs.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/german-scientists-teleporter-transporter-3d-printing-star-trek
LikeLike
Kris I loved the particular argument you made about how the example of Twitter could be used to maybe allow us, in the 21st century, to empathise with the same notion of “now” as the people of the 1900’s were first exposed to back when the telegraph was introduced. It is not doubt the real time, click of a button allowances of Twitter brought many skeptics to this new platform when it was first introduced, although it is now commonly recognised as one of the most popular social media sites. In the 1900’s they had the telegraph. In 2016, we have Twitter. Here’s an article describing how Twitter has been used as the main source of news regarding the conflicts in Venezuela. This real time notion of “now” can be very much likened to those same ideologies brought on by the invention of the telegraph.. http://fusion.net/story/316049/how-twitter-became-the-main-source-for-real-news-in-venezuela/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fear of the unknown is a pathological facet of the human psyche not just in terms of technology but ideology, religion, geography (I hate moving), etc. but nonetheless it’s a part of life. Because life is change and when things become static, they’re dead. There will always be skeptics and naysayers who fear what these realities may become and they are not necessarily wrong to do so. Technology and software is constantly being adapted and manipulated to ways the original creator did not anticipate and they are not always for benign purposes. But the moment we stop pushing the boundaries, the moment we stop dreaming and searching is the moment creativity dies.
LikeLike
Hi ther molto bene blog my dude! The level of immediacy that digital communication allows for is astounding; yet completely normalised. Comparative to the invention of the telegraph, it had revolutionary impact and generated significant paradigmatic shift – and the level of immersion and immediacy does not compare to the state of communication rn. Yet users and audiences of the time were almost hyper aware of the change, however because we are so desensitised to its presence it goes unnoticed. The reason is dichotomy. We grew up with this level of immediacy, we are conditioned to a type of communication that permits this. We don’t know any other way. And it becomes evident when Internet is slow, or we are out of reception
LikeLike
Kris, I really like your post, and your meme made me laugh. WITCHERY! I also like the comparison between instant telegraphs to Twitter. I think what the New York Times took offence to in 1858 was the trashy level of news one was now being fed, like there was #nofilter, anything seemed to go from then on. It reminds me of when people were shocked at the format of Twitter, many elder people thought that it would be used just to give trashy and/or mundane updates on our life, e.g. “Just had a coffee, but it was a little strong for my liking.” Now we know that Twitter has made a great impact on society. Maybe if the students could tweet more about how great our parents soup is, they might accept Twitter. 😉
LikeLike