In your reading for homework, there is a slightly intense dialogue about "old media" and "new media." Using the readings we have done on technology and literacy (this means you need to go back a couple weeks for some of them), I want you to "meet the press" and create a case for old media, new media, or both. Your response should take whatever form you feel allows you to step up and meet the press. It should NOT simply be a response--you can take a side to speak from (the press or the public) and create a voice based on that side.
What I'm looking for is for you to create an INFORMED case speaking from the voice of either the press or the public. This means evidence, evidence, evidence, and I want you using the readings from class. Per normal you should be responding to your peers as well.
**If you don't know what "meet the press" means...you didn't critically read the Beltway blog. =)
As a member of the public, I’d like to point out the necessary relationship between old media and new media while I speak in favor of new media. To begin, we must acknowledge that old media like news programming has an interactive relationship with new media like blogs and websites. The two feed off of each other: the 6 o’clock news might not have the time to report all of the details of one story, but you can go online and learn more about what happened from an array of different sites and blogs. News on TV sets up the conventions of reporting that blogs borrow from. Like the Beltaway blog reading explained, even a presidential candidacy could be hugely affected by the internet and the people on the internet’s power.
ReplyDeleteToday, new media caters to more audiences than old media does. First of all, almost everyone is online. You have people being bored at work, surfing the internet for anything to keep them occupied until 5. This is where news being reported online comes in handy: you can read up on current events while looking like you’re working (no newspaper in your hand, you’re not looking at a TV).
Like we read about in Blogging Revolution, there are countless blogs on the internet today. This means a few things for the news, press, and public. First of all, a lot of blogs means a lot of authors. Some of these authors are knowledgeable on their topics: they report true facts and valid information. Others don’t. This issue is pointed out in the Beltaway blog, when the author explains how the news reported online can come from unreliable sources. More and more, though, “reliable” sources and actual journalists are publishing their work on reliable websites (CNN.com, People.com), so you know the information reported has at least been checked before being published. But what people write on their own websites and blogs might not be as factual; they have no editor checking their facts or correcting their mistakes. It becomes the public’s responsibility to question the media, scrutinize it, even, to decide what is actually true.
This leads me to the next idea: numerous blogs means numerous audiences. This is enhanced in new media because these audiences can interact with each other and with the authors. Blogs and websites allow you to leave comments, while TV news only gives you the opportunity to yell at the television or write an angry email to the channel. New media invites people to get involved with current events by not only learning more, but understanding how such events might affect people. For example, Blogging Revolution talked about Linda’s Cancer Blog, which followed a woman through her journey and final days with cancer. This personal account could encourage people to learn more and contribute to the fight against cancer, while watching a story on the news TV might not be as emotional or stirring.
Born Digital pretty much underlines why I think the public gains so much from new media- more and more people are growing up online, and this is where information can reach them in the easiest way and most effective way.
There’s a great deal of fuss surrounding the embrace of “new media”. The commotion comes largely from those who are accustom to the traditional, or “old media.” When examining the pros and cons of the new media, we’re really disputing the impact of the internet on our society and its individuals. It’s no secret, print is dying. Independent, publicly traded American newspapers have lost forty-two per cent of their market value in the past three years. (Mutter) “Digital natives are coming to rely upon this connected space for virtually all of the information they need to live their lives.” (Palfrey 6) Who would contest the growth and accessibility brought forth by the internet? 1 out of every 6 people in the world is connected. (Palfrey 14) That’s the WORLD we’re talking about.
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t agree more with Alex when she says that we can’t neglect the old media when talking about the new. After all, that’s where it all came from. Old media is still very much alive in the different forms of new media. YouTube is the poor man’s MSNBC, blogs are the amateur’s NY Post, and we’re bombarded with both novice and expert opinion. Sometimes, even blatant ignorance. But these people are speaking and others are listening. That’s the beauty of new media.
What happens when the watchdog isn’t just in a news room or behind a camera, broadcasting from a local or national studio, what if the watchdog lived down the street? Or next door, for that matter? The role of media is been said to be America’s “fourth estate,” an unofficial branch of government. But it’s still that, a branch of government. The media gets to pick the next big distraction, and play it on repeat until you could repeat the banter with some accuracy. They choose what we see, and in turn, what we think about. Why shouldn’t people who take their unpaid time to examine issues have a voice to speak with?
Okay, so not every Tom, Dick and Harry needs to pretend he’s an expert on the issued discussed in the news. We’re an educated enough society to know that Wikipedia is a great way to quickly reference something, but that doesn’t make it 100% accurate by any means. The same should thought should be applied to amateurs. “The key is: Are they smart enough to identify these people, to realize this is a skill set we need? The bigger question is: Are you willing to let go of some control?” (Westley)
“And the old media, under pressure to work fast, sharpen their voices and cut costs, are increasingly making news blog-style, through argument and controversy.” (Poniewozik) Old media is losing its notoriety. Corners are cut in the cutting of budgets. American’s aren’t seeing the same attention to accuracy and detail that they used to from the mass media. Reporters aren’t able to become as invested in a single article because they are writing many. So hey, old media, let the new media help you. Let US tell YOU what we want to know more about, instead of force-feeding us your own agendas?
The eventual decay of old media is a reality. Maybe not in the next decade, but give it time. We should always remember our roots, but this change shouldn’t be met with resistance. After all, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction” (Winston Churchill)
The public deserves to know the truth. No matter how you change it up, this phrase permeates our world. The desire to know about what is going on and our right as citizens to be a part of the whole process is a very American trait that is exemplified through new media.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending copious amounts of time learning about remediation, it would be pointless for me to state that new media is more important than old media or that one can exist without the other. The new forms of media, including: blogs, vlogs, youtube, campaign websites, twitter, etc., have all derived from less technologically-driven forms of media like newspapers, speeches, and the televised news. There must be an original source for the new to take off. So, in that sense, I think it is safe to say that without a reporter (of any kind) the news will not be dispersed. The question is: Who are the reporters of today’s day?
I’ll digress from that subject and simply state that the public serves as both receiver of news and deliverer of news with the plethora of options at their disposal. Now, I’d like to take a few moments to defend “New media”
New media, as we learned in Yancey’s Born Digital is the composition for the world that “this generation” is growing up in. After reading the “Blogging Revolution” it was only made transparently clear that information about anything and everything is spread online by anyone who cares to log online.
What does this mean then when confronted with “meeting the press” and who is the press? In the clip we read from Beltway Blog the writer mentions how new media, such as blogs, used to simply “dispense opinion” while the older media “broke news.” A few years ago, this may have been the case, as this new medium was still new to the public, but as the popularity of blogs has grown to encompass, well, everyone. The public has a voice that can no longer be silenced and they are not afraid to use it. There are no longer secrets to be kept because we, as citizens, will not allow them to be kept. News is now taking flight on the web where viewers are accessing blogs to state their opinions, watching videos, checking political backgrounds and facts for themselves. News is reaching the public not by “press but by viewers watching the live webcast” and taking the news into their own hands. Facebook has also become an interactive news source for many people, allowing them to check on stories and people within a matter of a few clicks.
The “Digital Natives” are more suitable to this new form of media, and, as Alex said, this “new media caters to more audiences than the older media does” and allows for greater immediacy than “old media;” however, the “old media” still influences the way we function. I disagree slightly with Alicia when she says that “the eventual decay of old media is a reality.” If I learned anything through the study of remediation, it was that the old always influences the new and aspects of the old will show up in the new no matter how developed our society becomes.
No matter the media source, the public will find new ways to achieve immediacy in the news.
Times are changing. This is the truth and it’s the simplest way to introduce today’s topic. Right now we live in a time where ‘normal’ does not seem to exist and rules are mostly viewed as mere suggestions. In order to keep up with the times, newspapers must compromise with changing technologies and methods of communication or else they will become irrelevant to our generation. Yancy said it best when she wrote in Composition in a New Key that it’s important to teach people how to use these technologies in order to remain relevant. While it’s important for mediums to keep up with the ever-changing times, it’s also important to note that without rules to govern the mediums there will be anarchy.
ReplyDeleteIt’s no secret that Generation Y deaths with practically only online mediums, as Born Digital tells us. We are savvy with our technology and have no qualms about expressing our thoughts, likes and dislikes. We share practically everything else about our own lives and we expect others to be equally open and honest with us. Being Digital Natives, we demand information and we demand it almost instantly and we don’t want to beat around the bush with political correctness.
This is where the newspapers are standing in our way of valuable information. Reporters are required by the rules of their profession to identify themselves as news reporters and ask permission to quote someone. Say a famous person is being interviewed by a person who has identified themselves as any kind of reporter, that person will put on a show for a good review but it might not be how they are in real life. If reporters do not identify themselves, the person quoted can file a lawsuit against the newspaper, reporter or both. Members of the press are also banned from certain events, so the public is kept from information. Rules in the newspaper trade prevent writers from collecting and reporting all of the information available.
Blog writers and social media lovers do not have this problem whatsoever. They are not employed by a legitimate news source, so they don’t have to identify themselves as writers to other people. Also, as pointed out in the Beltway Blog, online writers/bloggers are able to get into events that are strictly off limits to the press. Thanks to these non-newspaper employed writers, we are able to see how public figures really act.
Even though we get more of the information we really crave, it is important for newspapers to keep some of their current structure and employ rules. There must be responsible journalism. They must make sure that all of the facts they gather are, in fact, truth. If people were able to write anything they wanted and post it on a respected news source’s website as fact there would be a panic among the population. People would abuse the power and create chaos.
It is essential, as Alex said, that the old media and new media combine their strong points in some sort of compromise. While I prefer the new media and the convenience that the internet provides us, we must keep some of the old rules in place. As we read in Blogging Revolution, people write about everything: their opinions on news pieces, some kind of trial they are going through in their lives and the list goes on. Blogs, right now, allow authors to insert some kind of personal and relatable element while (generally speaking) incorporate fact and advice.
Whats Up In Your Neck of the Hood?
ReplyDeleteMr. Media Mogul met with the individual members of the press yesterday regarding his recent showdown with blogging sensations, like InTheCut, and twitter enthusiasts, such as Da411. Present at the meeting was our news correspondent and writer of the blog Whats Up In Your Neck of the Hood? Zack Hadeed.
Hadeed – Mr Mogul. Sir could you please elaborate on your recent defeat in the stand against what you’d like to call “New Media”?
Media Mogul – We here at Old Media Studios will never admit defeat to such an informal and unjustified source of news. Our journalists feel almost offended that society has taken such a drastic turn on keeping up to date with what is going on around the world. How can we come to trust information that is splashed with opinion and painted throughout the web by those to lazy to leave the seats of their couch’s and base their thoughts on people like John Stewart or Stephen Colbert?
Hadeed – Are stating that their would never be any form of merger or collaboration between what society wants to hear, in the form of “New Media”, to what they are hearing from you? Clearly both Colbert and Stewart have been able to utilize the advantages of having an ‘e-audience’ to find some balance between the two. Have they not?
Media Mogul – The idea of “New Media” may seem up to date and current with society’s demands of immediacy and hypermediacy, however it is crippling journalism as a formal way of spreading news on current issues. We are struggling to keep with “New Media’s” ability to be accessed whenever, wherever. The public simply has gone from tuning in nightly to watch the 6 o’clock news, to following their favourite source of news on Twitter, be it an unqualified blogger or CNN’s Rick Sanchez.
Hadeed – What about the success of President Obama’s ‘e-campaign’? We saw throughout the election that the President was able to manipulate his campaign towards utilizing “New Media’s” assets.
Media Mogul – The President’s campaign was a clear example of why we here at Old Media Studios are suffering. The mailing lists, the Facebook fans and the various blog pages set up by the President’s camp challenged us an all fronts of newscasting, from live reporting to election day analysis. We were learning from them, them being Twitter-ers like Da411 or blogger and online reporter Mayhill Flower, rather than them learning from us. How can we be ‘Breaking News’ when they broke it 3 minutes ago by updating their statuses to “Obama in da house, da white house!!”
Hadeed – Sir, there seems to be some issue on whether both forms of media can exist and who is feeding whom. Why not take to the approach of “New Media”? Or, as suggested by blogger Alex Delgado, can these multiple forms of media act as a way to reach out to new and varied audiences?
Media Mogul – The “New Media” form is something we have looked into as professional journalist’s. However we cannot defeat the beauty of blogs and the relationship with e-audiences. An audience will stick with a blog because it believes in the opinions expressed. If they disagree they go ahead an start up their own blog. Old Media Studios has to maintain a neutral view on issues in order to stick to the formalities of reporting the news. Hopefully we can exist with in the same world of media, however people will continue to read blogs or blog themselves as long as they have an opinion on the issue. It is society’s demand for hypermediacy. And technology today has allowed them to achieve it.
Hadeed – Thank you sir for your time. My blog readers and Twitter followers will appreciate your insight on the current situation. Lol.
It is no surprise that there has been an obvious change between what we, as the public, consider “new” and “old” media. While it would be ignorant to say that one rules over the other, since they do co-exist, it is hard to deny the obvious popularity one might have over the other. As a digital native myself, I can see why the “new” media which consists of blogs, videos, and everything World Wide Web would be so popular with our generation. We have grown up being informed by our Television sets and computer screens, and while there can be obvious problems with this broad form of communicating information, it has far more benefits than the “old” media can provide. Like the Beltway Blog mentioned, “old” media, particularly print, is dying. While they “each need each other to supply material and drive attention” the new media provides instantaneous news, and with far more details than a newspaper can fit on their paper, or a broadcast channel can fit on their scheduled air time. You also have to consider the radio’s role as an old medium. Radio news/talk shows used to be really big, and their popularity has gone significantly, considering Podcasts that can be downloaded and played at the listener’s convenience, as well as YouTube, that provides a view on the topic at hand without the restrictions of the FCC.
ReplyDeleteThe most popular and what seemed to be the focus of the Beltway reading, form of new media is the blog. As was mentioned in the Blogging revolution reading we had, blogs are meant to be more personal than a traditional web site, and therefore leave more room for the opinions of others. The most common critique of blogs seems to be that of “process and credentials.” The real issue is that bloggers have no code to which adhere to, as do professional journalists, and therefore can pose any kind of information on their blogs as “news” without having the proper sources or facts. However, since the start of blogs, there has been somewhat of a loose code enforced that bloggers will be honest in their posts. Aside from this being a problem, I believe the public has a right to know certain information that certain journalists would otherwise be unable to print because of their affiliations with certain companies.
Those who stick by the old medium have obviously been outdated. The digital natives of this generation are used to the right here, right now, mentality of the new mediums we have received our news and information from, and the old just cannot keep up. It is far more convenient to look up the top news stories on web sites or videos, than to wait around for the 6 o’clock news, or for the Sunday’s issue of the paper.
Sarah opens her response with a very powerful comment: “The public deserves to know the truth.” While I agree with her, I’m not sure if “old media” or “new media” follow this rule very strictly, if very much at all. With newscasters, newspaper reporters, or speeches from candidates, the public may receive a somewhat leveled amount of information from both sides, but one side will always be emphasized in the issue, it’s human nature. With blogs, vlogs, YouTube, and so on, there is definitely a bias involved in the portrayal of “news.” How can the public expect to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth if some blithering idiot is screaming at his webcam or punching keys and posting pics onto her blog page solely about his/her opinion, and nothing else?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Alex. The only way “old” and “new media” can exist in today’s digital world is through a cooperative interaction of the two. News stories can now be shortened to allow for more issues to be addresses, as most people nowadays find more in-depth stories online, as Alex points out. With nearly everyone in possession of a computer, the presence of news blogs and websites allows for a greater sense of Bolter and Grusin’s immediacy, as well as hypermediacy. However, because of the astounding presence of bloggers on the interwebs, the accuracy (as Alex mentions, as well) of the news which is published must be taken in to question. Sources that are reputable and have established their status as reliable news suppliers can be taken seriously, while those bloggers who type out their anger, frustration, or whatever emotion they may be feeling at that moment need to be looked upon with a cautious eye and skeptical mentality.
I really enjoyed Alicia’s comment about the “beauty of ‘new media.’” After all, it allows more people to access more sources of information, and it even allows them to find sources that are aimed specifically at their interests. The days of buying entire newspapers for just the business section (or – let’s be real – the funnies and games) are over. People can now go to a website that is made specifically for the jokes of lives people have, or for the latest breaking news in the business world. As Fleckenstein states in Blogging Revolution, there are blogs out there to suit any interest, any demographic. And, as Alex also mentioned, even political candidates have entered the blogosphere to reach out to their more tech-savvy constituents and supporters.
Personally, I prefer the “old media.” I grew up watching the news with my mom while eating breakfast and waiting to go to school. I remember sitting on the couch on Saturday mornings with my parents, all of us reading a different section of the same newspaper. Like the others, I believe that it is impossible for either of these media to be successful without the cooperation and support of the other. Because print media are sadly declining, and any school-kid with a keyboard can spew his opinions on everything and anything to the world, whether we care or not, the presence of both media and the cooperation between them can give us a better picture, and wider range, of the “truth” about what’s going on in the world around us.
As a member of the public I am a defender of accurate and well-reported news. I enjoy the convenience of new media and I also appreciate print and other forms of old media. However, it is of less importance to me the medium that the message is in as compared to the message itself. It is my affirmation, though, that traditionally old media is more reliable and that the credentials of a reporter are important not only to the accuracy of the news being reported, but also that the news is reported in an ethical way.
ReplyDeleteThe example used in the Beltway Blog of Mayhill Fowler is an example of way in which new media caused unethical reporting to occur. Fowler was indeed “sneaky” about her investigation, and since she did not have to follow any of the rules or stipulations in place by old media, she was able to post information that could very well have been libel immediately on the World Wide Web.
As a member of the public, I do value that news is shared with me and I do not think that ethics should be an excuse to sweep things under the table, but I also value my own privacy and believe firmly that it is important to have rules and a structure to reporting. Accredited news sources should be the most valued places to gather information.
As the author mentions in Born Digital, many people are still Digital Immigrants to new technology. It is therefore essential for old media to cooperate with new media in order to reach both Digital Immigrants AND Digital Natives. However, according to Fleckenstein in “The Blogging Revolution” there were over 67 million blogs documented in 2006. It is clear that “new media” is essential and whether we like it or not it is where the public gets much of its information. As both Alicia and Alex have said, we cannot neglect either the old media when talking about the new or vice versa. They are intertwined and you cannot have one without the other. Alicia says, “Old media is still very much alive in the different forms of new media. YouTube is the poor man’s MSNBC, blogs are the amateur’s NY Post, and we’re bombarded with both novice and expert opinion.” And I think she makes an excellent assertion. Old media should be the source for new media. That is where there can be a buffer created in order to check the accuracy of the news report.
I am certainly not saying that we should do away with new media, but I definitely believe the public should use caution when relying on it for news. According to a recent PRUSA report, Americans view television as their most reliable news source. Since new media is so highly valued today it is important that it be handled well.
Almost everything seems to be digital in the current age. Digitality runs rampant as “old media” tends to, as Alicia states, decay. The gradual disappearance of widely viewed news shows and the almost all too rapid decay of the newspaper are upon us in the digital age. As digital natives, we prefer methods that fit into our modern lifestyles. We choose technology that impacts how we live and how we “relate to the world” (Palfrey, 3). Yet, in the hopes for the future of “new media” Palfrey provides us with the idea that digital natives are “tremendously creative” so much that we express ourselves “creatively in ways that are very different from the ways [our] parents did at their age” (6).
ReplyDeleteWe take things like vlogs, blogs, and user-interface friendly websites to get information out into the open and communicate with others throughout the world. Still, would this “new media” on which we are so reliant and accustomed to exist without “old media?” I believe that it surely would not. Sarah also brings up this point in her theory of an “original source.” The presence of the reporter is the dissemination of the information. Today, users are the seeds of the dandelion on the winds of information.
Manifestations of social networking existed in forms that may still seem advanced, but do not compare to current methods. The conference call is the predecessor to Skype. Myspace and Facebook are not without more basic origin either. Sites like Classmates and Six Degrees that existed back in the 1990s give things like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter a foundation. While the former grouping is still based in the Internet, the interface was more basic and appealed to the crowd of the times.
I would like to highlight a point that Alex brought up that “new media caters to more audiences than old media does.” I both agree and disagree with this statement, and my paradox of beliefs is best illustrated by Poniewozik’s analogy comparing new and old media. He states that the relationship is symbiotic and that the differentiating factors of both make it “hard to tell who's the rhino and who's the tickbird.” Old media starts to assimilate some of the factors of new media, but new media only exists because it feeds from the source that created it. The consideration of the audience, however, differs just as the relationship between the two differs. Newspapers are written at a reading level that is typically much lower than that of the most prominent intellectual. However, the seventh grade reading level is more appealing to masses.
At the same time, however, computers bombard you with hypermediacy that is appealing to the digital natives and immigrants. Multiple images and ideas bouncing across the screen makes one feel more enlightened in terms of the information.
With all things considered, however, the day that old media decays entirely will be a sad one. Like Michael, I too sat up on weekend mornings with my parents reading sections of the paper or spent the wee hours of the morning before high school classes eating cereal and enjoying the morning news. Even as a romantic in these terms, the way media is going is toward the new. Let’s just hope that new media does not complete consume its symbiotic partner before it can assimilate to such a lifestyle.
Who’s to say which type of media is superior to another? Once upon a time there was only one form of media, and until the creation of a second source the “old media” was sitting pretty as the number one choice for citizens to get their news fix. But now, times have changed. A new competitor is in the picture: “new media”, and as it seems, this new branch of media is rubbing its youthful attention getting appeal in the “old media’s” face. Who’s to say who wins? Is it the individuals picking up the magazine and reading it? Or maybe it is the journalists who put hours and days of effort into their masterpieces that can improve or demolish the reputations?
ReplyDeleteThis is where I agree with Michael. The amount of factors going into the decision behind watching news broadcast on the internet or visiting a live protest lie solely within the viewer, and bias is essential. The answer is that no one wins. It’s all a relative decision, but what must be pointed out is that the decision chosen will affect the reaction. Why? Because through different sources come different appeals. Blogs are suggestive of their community, protests are based on interest groups, and politics are based on the approval of citizens. All of which appeal to each and everyone differently. This is where the competition can get vicious.
Because of the “newness” of a new media, the same subject of news can be seen in two different lights almost instantaneously. I agree with Alex and Michael that the two rely on each other, and go hand in hand. For example, bring yourself back to 9/11, and picture yourself seated or standing or doing what ever you were doing on 9/11. Now erase your memory. You are going about your day, and you have just received a blog notification that there are terrorists coming to America that will destroy the World Trade Centers and take the lives of many. Obviously with this type of inside information the response would be wild, and while the lives of the civilians in the Towers would have been saved, such inside information could have provoked a reactive response by the terrorists thus creating a worse situation. However, on the other hand, if the blog had not been written, we would be left with the situation we have today. A news casting after the fact, and the lives of many taken away. The question brings up valid points, but as always, its brutal to think about the “what ifs”.
It’s all relative to Bolter and Grusin’s examples of hypermedia as well. Without hypermedia, things would be different, and hypermedia as we have seen takes place without knowledge of it even doing so, and without knowledge of any sort of bias taking place. Immediacy has that affect on us, and has left us impressionable and yearning for more news in the fastest and most affective manner.
Blogs, YouTube, face book, news networks online as well as personal websites have the capabilities to provide bias, opinion, information both true and false (among many other qualities) in a matter of seconds. A lie can be the subject for the world to see, or the truth could defend you from destruction. The questioning and comparison can be daunting, but the new and old media both allow viewers and listeners to react in their chosen ways.
The battle will go on, and eventually, a third competitor will be added. Inevitably one form of media will eventually be lost, but the perpetual cycle will remain, and the battle will never end.
Born and raised a digital native, it’s hard to imagine my life without technology and the omnipresence of the media, be it old or new. However, as an informed member of the public I prefer to get my news online through mainstream networks. The fact that old media are making news available blog-style is incredibly convenient for those of us who don’t want to buy a newspaper or sit through the rigmarole of the traditional televised news program - really anchors, the banter is neither amusing nor funny, cut to the facts!
ReplyDeleteNow, many members of the public feel that “Establishment journalism has gotten better at serving its powerful sources than its public” (Poniewozik), and while in some cases that may be true, I say on the other hand, how can you trust some random/anonymous blogger from Anywhere, USA to be uttering fact and not fiction. With the old media there, as Alissa mentions, “must be responsible journalism. They must make sure that all of the facts they gather are, in fact, truth”. So, while there are plenty of opinion pieces available on a major network’s website much of the material is checked for accuracy. Yet, with the rules and regulations of traditional journalism also come rules and regulations.
As the Beltway Blog mentions the press can be prohibited from events and there are legal ramifications to reporting certain information without permission. The “new media” doesn’t necessarily have to adhere to these policies because of the fact that they are unaffiliated and I would have to agree with Giselle when she says, “the public has a right to know certain information that certain journalists would otherwise be unable to print because of their affiliations”. So, the question for us a news hungry public is, who can we trust? And how far are we willing to go to get the scoop?
As for the “old media”, of course we can all remember sitting around the living room watching the 6 o’clock news or 20/20 with our families, but there was also a time when families gathered around a single radio to listen to the news and radio shows. The fact is that as Alissa said plainly, the times are changing. New technologies are emerging that offer greater immediacy than television and newspapers and the public will utilize them. Fleckenstein mentions in “The Blogging Revolution” that blogs provide even those that might be not so technologically savvy with an outlet to express their ideas. Pretty much anyone who wants a new outlet of communication has the ability to blog – politicians, teens, journalists etc. (Fleckenstein). As members of the public we need to be aware of this fact. I think that as a result of the onslaught of blogs and YouTube users etc. who publish their opinions freely, the future will find us as the fact checkers. We as a public are going to have to be the ones to find the balance between straight-laced journalism and opinion blogging.
I can say that I am personally very pleased with this paradigm shift with the new media from the old, one that is better affiliated with the public and free of any underlying financial agenda. The blog mentions the question of which would be more trust worthy with correspondents of the new and old medias. I am a firm believer in the grassroots movement. I feel the same way about my media as I do my politics, seeing how they go hand in hand mostly.
ReplyDeleteThe best I can say to answer this question is who would you rather trust, a neighbor or a complete stranger? This statement means no disrespect to ‘old media’ journalism giants such as Tim Russert, but rather to pay them due respects in the realization that we couldn’t have this ‘new media’ if it weren’t for the old.
As we read to further our understanding on ‘Digital Natives,’ I think we got a sense of what it means to be a part of this public. I think that the coming of this new media sends an empowering message, our voices are the ones that count. Why trust stale old corporate America to deliver ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ news coverage when it is now in our own power to say the same things they say, but get paid for. Is there any need to ‘diffuse an army of the uncredentialed, uninhibited and--most terrifyingly--unpaid?’
As we gain experience for ourselves as news correspondents in this ‘new media,’ I think it is important that we all realize that a good reader always approaches any media with skepticism. This is essential. Fleckenstein said it best, students must perceive the incoherence in their own writing, and treat what they read in much the same way, it’s just good editing practice. To appropriately critique yet be reflective of your own abilities as a writer. With time, maybe one day we will see this practice within new media become better established.
As citizens in a country so controlled by the media, it only seems absolutely necessary that we know what it happening to it. The “old media” that our entire culture was once so familiar with is on its way to becoming obsolete. Yet at the same time, so are the digital immigrants that gave it life (that’s really not supposed to be as morbid as it sounds).
ReplyDeleteLooking at new media versus old media, the greatest difference I notice is the way in which it is received. Digital natives don’t really get their news, information, or entertainment from ephemeral media much anymore. A newspaper is rarely found in the hands of someone under the age of 30, and if it is, it’s to make sure ESPN.com didn’t make up that disgraceful report from the game last night.
Personally, I find this trend to be somewhat alarming. What I like most about “old media” is the accuracy and reliability you can count on from them. Journalists and their editors must be sure of the truthfulness of their publications. They’ve got to go out into the fields themselves and find the stories. It seems a little unfair to me that most blog sites can simply rely on the mainstream media as a source. The bloggers can include whatever fact or fiction they wish to on their blogs. This makes them a somewhat unreliable source. I’m not saying all blogs are full of lies. There are several credible online sites that are full of valuable information. The ones that consistently deliver quality information and content are going to build credit with the online community. Consumer and audience age create a huge gap between the two medias. As I mentioned before, digital natives are more likely to employ the use of new or new new media. It’s full of “argument and controversy,” it’s exciting, and always new. But more importantly, it’s NOW. The convenience of new media is something that old media just can’t challenge. The readers make their demands, and have them met within hours, if not sooner. The main stream media has far too many checkpoints to go through before they can give consumers any details. A blog takes moments to write, and a comment takes only seconds. The fact that unknown readers can interact immediately with one another makes the experience of new media even richer, and can provide boundless insight… at the price of astounding stupidity.
Jocelyn talks about how this new kind of media removes the financial agenda from media, and how she thinks it’s a good way for bloggers, for people like “us” to have their voices heard. This is all grand and everything, but… what?? It’s terrible that unpaid bloggers are starting to control everything. I chose the EWM major because I want to write about current events and entertainment, and GET PAID FOR IT. These tards that are taking over the news media are going to ruin my career. Now, I know that something like the magazine industry isn’t going to fizzle out anytime soon, but what happens when they can get all their contributions for free? Are the readers going to become the editors? If the blogging revolution really takes over, will they even bother editing and filtering the online editions? No way. The real stories have to start somewhere. Bloggers are too lazy to get out of their computer chairs, right? Yikes. I really hope I haven’t spent all this time and money in college, just so my (future) job can be taken by some dimwit who beat me to the blogosphere…
While I do believe that “old media” deserves a bunch of credit for bring us to where we are today, I’m all in favor for “new media” for multiple reasons. There is no doubt that technology has played a magnificent role in boosting the media to the level it’s at now. The internet has allowed us to eliminate the use of paper text and has introduced a way make media travel within seconds. With our world “going green” the “new media” is completely supportive of tree huggers allowing information to be transported electronically without the waste of printed text.
ReplyDeleteThe “new media” such as youtube, blogs, twitter, introduce something that the “old media” didn’t exactly entail. These new forms of media are more along the lines of a form of expression, allowing the author to create more informal environment for readers to give feedback on the media. Whereas with the old media, the written texts were more formally written and factual, and didn’t allow the readers to interact. New media connects with the readers on a more personal level, which I think is the reason why it is so widely popular. It allows people of all different background to engage in the media despite their differences.
If we didn’t incorporate the old media in the new there would be absolutely no structure. The old media creates a balance between the two, still allowing freedom but in a structural manner. Just like previous students have mentioned that although “new media” is much more efficient, the “old media” is where it all started. If we didn’t have the old, we would have never been able to create the new.
I’d also like to comment on what Sarah and Michael have already addressed. Sarah commented, “ The public deserves to know the truth.” And Michael agreed but still was hesitant to believe that the “old media” or “new media” follow the strictly. Michael commented that allow newscasters and newspaper reporters are more informational it is only human nature that one side of the issue will be emphasized. I couldn’t agree with this more. Although it may come off to be unintentional, everyone is entitled to their opinion and even without knowing it, as human beings we tend to express ourselves. While I think freedom of expression is one of the advantages of “new media” where it is accepted to do so, I think this same situation was found in the ”old media,” intended or not. Most people involved in the media have studied rhetoric and know the advantages of persuasive speech. So don’t be so quick to not judge the writer’s intentions.
I think that it has been made more aware that new media is more so opinionated then the old. Therefore readers expect it, and in return can choose not to agree. Overall I believe the new media has more pros then cons. Who knows what the future may hold. The new media won’t be new for long.
I'm a member of the public. I firmly support the trend toward new media, because it opens up communication pathways and allows information consumers more control over their news. Citizens now have the freedom and ability to vet their own news sources, rather than relying on old media which is edited and can be opaque about their sources. The increased transparency and accountability of new media is refreshing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you really can’t have new media without old media; the two have a strong symbiotic bond. New media often drives content on old media breaking stories before prime time news. This improves the quality and impartiality of old media content. Conversely, old media fuels new media which thrives on fact checking the media titans. I agree with Poniewoik ‘s assessment that many people feel the “establishment journalism has gotten better at serving its powerful sources than its public.” There used to be a standard of impartial journalism, however now old media is scene to lack the transparency of new media. I believe Giselle’s comment that, “the public has a right to know certain information that certain journalists would otherwise be unable to print because of their affiliations, “is very pertinent in this situation. Freedom of information helps to insure our society remains democratic. Most blogs are unaffiliated with large interests and by FTC law bloggers are required to disclose any affiliations.
However, not all bloggers are reliable. Fleckenstein brings up the point that pretty much anyone with access to a computer can blog. So the question becomes how we can know if a blog’s content is reliable. Well in many cases the sources are provided for readers to fact check blog posts. As digital natives we are adapted to the mentality that all online information must be vetted.