Tag Archives: #remediation

Redridinghood Blog Post #8


With Donna Leishman’s “Redridinghood” it has definantly been made to be interactive with the reader and changes the way the story is normally told. This new form of the story is like one of those story books where you are at one page and gives you options of where to go next in the story. And each option changes or stays with how the story is being told, good or bad. It does have that same effect but because of the new media that it was created on, more like an electronic piece of literature, then it has changed the way the reader interacts with the story. It also has changed the story a bit as well. Everyone knows the original story of Red Riding Hood, but in this version, it changed certain elements in the story. It’s more modernized and the wolf is actually a guy.

For this new version, the story is not like a picture book or anything other form of a paper book. Yes it’s like the version I stated above, but everything else is different. Redridinghood is a picture story, but has very little texts. It’s been remediated into the digital form and has become interactive. You click on a certain place or image and it may have it do something (like with the flowers moving), or the book becoming a diary when you click on Red Riding Hood’s bag. In doing so, then it allowed the use of affordance to help tell the story.

Stansberry: Authoring Project

Super Mario: Now & Then


1. To produce my compilation remix I used several programs and websites. I collected videos from Youtube.com by searching gameplay clips for each versions of Super Mario Bros., then extracted and downloaded them using ClipConverter.cc and lastly compiled and edited the clips myself in Windows Live Movie Maker. I took bits and pieces from the compilation of videos with the audio and formed my own work. Then I exported the movie from a .wlmp file to a .wmv so I could publish it on Youtube.
2. In this video my main goal was to highlight the similarities and differences and how Super Mario Bros has been remediated over the last 30 years. For each version I tried to show the start menu, small clips of game-play, and the finish of a level. It’s interesting to see how the producers use much of the same ideas and work from the originals but tweak them and enhance them in every new game.
3. In the production of this piece I mainly learned how to work around Windows Movie Maker. I was able to play around with some of the capabilities such as animation effects in how new clips come in or fade away, adjusting color and saturation, and reworking audio to match video clips.

Discussion Post 4


When comparing and contrasting the two news broadcasts from 1980 and 2008, it’s easy to tell the major changes the news have made in the past 20-25 years. The most obvious remedy is the “real-time” news feed text that runs along the bottom of the screen; it appears that in this broadcast that the news is all relayed in the feed, while the anchors and analysts all focus on the same story. On the contrary, the abc news report from 1990 seems to cover all these stories orally and is more focused on the anchorman and the story’s video footage than analysts particular views on one subject as in the 2008 cast. Another difference is the false background shown behind the analysts in the 2008 news and multiple windows shown creating a virtual conference room that you don’t see in the other. The fake backgrounds such as the white house are supposed to give the viewer a sense of “immediacy”, which Bolter and Grusin describe as making something digital, “‘natural’ rather than arbitrary”. Bolter and Grusin also have guidelines for the definition of remediation being that it is “repurposing” and the fact that “the ‘content’ of any medium is always another medium”.These broadcasts show displays these in that the news in the first broadcast has changed in medium to a running text feed.

Blog Post #4


Differences between the news programs in an 18 year period is pretty hard to see just how much has changed. In the 1990 ABC World News, it was straight to the point, and told what was going on. It was also pretty boring to watch, one because of the outdatedness and two because the anchor was only telling the news. In the 2008 CNN video, it was more opened. There was more opinions involved and the technology was better in the picture and labels.

But how this goes along with remediation, I do not see it entirely. What my understanding of remediation is taking an old form of media and making it better basically. While the differences between how the technology in the broadcasting is different, and perhaps better, I didn’t really see how it goes along with Bolter and Grusin. If remediation is also saying how we have changed the way media is diplayed or done now, then it kind of works a little. Mainly how it would work is in how in the ABC broadcast it was straight to the point and not opinionated; this was done in 1990. And nowadays, with the CNN broadcast the “news” has become very opinionated in how the intervees were discussing their view on how Oprah would change how people percieved Obama. Since she was endorsing him, then  that maybe because of how much power she has, then people might think “Yes he has my vote because Oprah know’s what she is doing”, or something to that extent.

Remediation and the News


The two videos, representing the news broadcasts of 1990 and 2008, are prime examples of what the text refers to as remediation. The differences between the two can be largely attributed to remediation, mostly because of the expanded use of media outlets.

The 1990 broadcast  detailed news in a way in which separated the mediums of news they utilized. There would be a full screen shot of the news caster, verbals conveying the news, then there would be a screen shot of text. This visual separation of the mediums is found throughout the broadcast, and is a way to combine the benefits of each medium while still creating a separate time for each to exist.

In contrast, the 2008 news cast represented what Bolton and Grunsin’s “Remediation” is in it’s entirety  Along with higher quality video, comes the mix of many resources become one image. While the image of the news caster is broadcast, there’s texts on the bottom of the screen scrolling through. This is the epitome of combining media’s for the maximum messages it is able to convey. The new casters in the 2008 broadcast also use many other mediums simultaneously as they speak, like other smaller video and pictures to enhance their story.

All of these media combined create the remediation we see everywhere in our society today.


The way news is broadcasted on television has changed a lot since the early 90’s.  The 1990 ABC World news clip had a much more simple and straightforward manner to it, whereas the 2008 broadcast was busy and multifaceted.  On a visual level, the ABC video was toned down with a single view, the news anchor presents himself warmly so as to give the viewer a sense of personal connection.  In the second video, there are several camera views and those speaking are doing so in a way that feels detached.  The television screen is also covered in other information and or news.  The significant increase in activity and information gave me anxiety as it makes you feel like you need to hurry up and grab every bit of information you see.  Also, the dialog is more superficial in context and brief in delivery.


Bolter and Grusin noted “television news programs also show the influence of the graphical user interface when they divide the screen into tow or more frames and place text and numbers over and around the framed video images” (p.189).  I thought the example of what visually holds the viewers interest when looking at modern art was an interesting comparison.  While a work of art is compositionally created with the intent of keeping the eye interested, the news interface has the opposite effect on me.  It is too much information in my opinion and I find myself tuning it out completely.

News and Remediation

When I reviewed the news broadcast 1990 and the news broadcast 2008, I realized there are definitely some noticeable changes. For instant, in the news broadcast 1990, the screen was only for the reporter. After his talk, they could show the view the video or the current event scenes. “Its raw ingredients are images, sound, text, animation and video, which can be brought together in any combination”(Remediation 31). It was pretty straight and solid orientations for the news broadcast 1990; one single thing happened at the time. That way, they combined to become the news broadcast at that time.

In the news broadcast 2008, there could be many reporters at the same screen and they all could talk about one subject. More than that, they could be minimized and moved to the left or right of the screen for showing the related video while the reporters were talking. Besides, the reporter could move anywhere that makes the news more interesting. “These devices, characterized by multiple images, moving images, or sometimes moving observers, seem to have operated under both these logics at the same time, as they incorporated transparent immediacy within hypermediacy”(Remediation 37). The news broadcast 2008 applied these logics very well and efficiently.

“The computer always intervenes and make its presence felt in some way, perhaps because the viewer must click on a button or slide a bar to view a whole picture or perhaps because the digital image appears grainy of with untrue colors. Transparency, however, remains the goal”(Remediation 46). However, the news broadcast 1990 and 2008 still had the same main goal; it was proving and updating accuracy information for the viewers. The technology has changes but the news was remaining the same.


Remediation In the News

@MyDtcAccount – Jonathan Crabtree


Change will always be a part of our society. Whether it be technology, people, or places, everything is in a constant state of transformation. Some for the better, some…not so much. One thing that is evident, however, is that the change in technology reflects the society of the time period. By looking at technology from the past and comparing it to today’s technology, one can see the remediation – “the representation of one medium in another” (78) – clearly and observe how much it has changed. Bolter and Grusin have the same idea, saying that “the practices of contemporary media constitutes a lens through which we can view the history of remediation” (66). For example, looking at a broadcast of ABC World News showed a simplified approach that encouraged the viewer to focus on one thing at the time. In contrast, the 2008 broadcast had multiple videos, pictures, and headlines all going together at the same time. Media is a good indicator of society, and it’s obvious that America has transformed from a patient audience that watches the news one story at a time into an audience that demands the news as quickly as possible, sometimes by listening and reading two stories at once.


Although the medium of the news has changed quite a bit in the past couple decades, there are still many similarities. As stated earlier, remediation is “the REPRESENTATION of one medium in another” (78), meaning that the new medium is not an original, but simply an advanced copy. Bolter and Grusin also argue that remediation “ensures that the older medium cannot be entirely effaced” (79), no matter how many years pass, or how many changes it undergoes.

Blog Post 4: Remediation

News differences: 1990 to 2008

The primary difference I found was the narrators. In 1990, there was a constant change in the screens to other people who did reports and focused only on them until their report was finished; however in 2008, they would cut the screen to show a full picture of the person they were introducing but later they would turn directly back to their news anchor and then add the other people in separate boxes near the news anchor for further discussion on the topic.


This is what I would like to focus on in Bolter and Grusin’s idea of remediation. First, one needs to define remediation. From Bolter and Grusin’s book, remediation can be defined as the remake of any old media into a new form but maintains some of the old medium in which it originated from. This comes from the quote, “the representation of one medium in another” (339). The medium in this case is the method of relaying information from other people. In 1990, the people were shown originally to discuss whatever they had to discuss with no interaction from any other person aside from the narrator who would reiterate what they were saying. In 2008, this old medium of relaying information was changed to involve other news anchors and also other people unrelated to the staff of the news company. With this remediated medium, the people could now discuss the information and talk to one other at that time point rather than showing premade videos of people whom they interview.


Some might not have noticed a very big difference between the two broadcasts except that the 2008 one has more color, flash and movement going on and around the commentators. For me the biggest difference is the quality of the reporting. The 1990 cast spends over seven minutes on one topic and covers multiple facets of it with actual information. Whereas the 2008 cast is only three and half minutes long with the time being discussed by ‘expert’ contributors that supply their own opinions and not really reporting actual facts, all the while distracting the viewer with multiple videos jumping back and forth and a ticker scrolling along the bottom. Bolter and Grusin make an interesting point when they state:

“With reuse comes a necessary redefinition, but there may be no conscious interplay between media. The interplay happens, if at all, only for the reader or viewer who happens to know both versions and can compare them.”

People may notice the changes visually but may not notice the quality of the information has dwindled. The news casts of today have reused the traditional model of an anchor but not the integrity in reporting quality news. I remember watching the news when I was younger and it having a more serious tone and integrity whereas today it seems anyone can be a broadcaster and accuracy is not required. Today when you watch the news the stories are short and barely touch the surface, facts are not checked as rigorously and there is always something else on the screen to grab your attention, to cater to the short attention span of today.

Audra Mann | @WSUVcollegeMom