AMU2450 Week1Communication Digital Media and Everyday Life - (2 What Is The Media and Is Digital Media New' - Toija Cinque)

8
2
What Is the Media, and Is Digital
Media ‘New’?
TOIJA CINQUE
Another night in the life of Family X

‘How do you get to play as Mario?’ calls out Ms X to her brother.
‘You have to get to the final level,’ replies a confident Master X.
The Family X siblings are happily ‘playing’ the now retro Super Mario online together on their respective
laptops at the dining room table. The television late news drones on in the background with no one paying
much attention to the latest celebrity footballer to be dragged before a tribunal. Ms X gets a call over Skype
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
and catches up with her best friend from kindergarten, Saba, who now lives in Dubai. Saba’s family have just
renovated their apartment and she ‘shows’ Ms X around. Via Facebook, Ms X has maintained contact with
her friends from primary and secondary school, many of whom live either interstate or overseas. In minutes
she can find out what they have done over the weekend and with whom. Even though they don’t see each
other in the ‘real world’, they have remained close.
She turns her attention to completing her uni homework on outer space. She is studying astronomy and
space science at university. Rather than using an encyclopaedia, she logs onto the Hubble telescope site
(hubblesite.org) to view high-resolution images taken in our galaxy. She realises that she has missed some
key classes that would help her complete her work, so she puts up the information she has on Google Docs
with some pictures and invites some of her classmates to let her know if she has missed any important
facts. One person points out that she has incorrectly noted the distance from the earth to the sun in one
of her digital models, so Ms X googles the correct answer and amends her mistake. As she does this, she
responds to txt messages coming in on her iPhone.
Chalkley, Tony, et al. Communication, Digital Media and Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=5402107.
Created from monash on 2021-07-26 04:54:38.
{CHAPTER 2} What Is the Media, and Is Digital Media ‘New’? 9
Master X leaves her to her tasks and heads out to a club in the city. He is part-way down the main street
when he gets the tweet ‘crap go GC’, by which he understands his destination to be a bust so he turns on his
heels for a club around the corner where he meets up with friends who got the same message.
Meanwhile, Mr X sets the alarm clock on his BlackBerry for 5am—not to check that Master X is home
but to check any emails that have come in from overseas before going into the office. Mrs X plays a game of
Mahjong with her friends online and reads another chapter from Mortal Remains on her iPad before turning
out the light.
WHAT YOU WILL LEARN FROM THIS CHAPTER

This chapter provides a simple definition of the media through the lens of Western society.
It outlines some of the various understandings of the term. It distinguishes between old
(legacy) and new (digital) media forms, and identifies the processes that have brought about
recent changes. It considers the impact on society that the widespread use of old and new
media has. In this chapter you will learn about:
what constitutes ‘the media’
how we went from ‘old’ media to ‘new’ media
what we mean by ‘new’ media
some of the issues that have arisen in the new media age.
Introduction
Right around the world in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, rapid technological developments
have allowed the media to infiltrate almost every aspect of daily life. The launch of social network
sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Tumblr has revolutionised the way we communicate,
in both our professional and personal lives. The introduction of Skype has also improved the way
we communicate through both voice and video contact. It is used to reunite families and gives older
people in nursing homes opportunities to speak with family interstate or overseas. Wireless devices
such as smart phones and tablets offer us the convenience of being able to work and communicate
on the go, any time, anywhere. We can watch television programs, movies and YouTube clips, upload
our own pictures or stories, stay in touch with family and friends, and network with colleagues
around the globe. No longer tethered to a desk, we are able to work more efficiently and flexibly.
We are even able contribute to the range of content being created, in a way that just wasn’t possible
Chalkley, Tony, et al. Communication, Digital Media and Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, TOIJA CINQUE
10 {PART 1} Media and Society
with the old broadcast model of media content delivery. Indeed, most of the chapters on new media
in this book will start by defining the old in comparison with the new. This chapter is no different
and includes an overview of what constitutes traditional (or legacy) mass media in order to establish
what is ‘new’ about emerging digital technologies and services.
Until fairly recently, the media (and what we do with it) was clearly defined and consisted of
four key media industries:
1 print (pamphlets, books, newspapers, magazines)
2 broadcasting (initially by radio and then television)
3 music (recordings on tape or vinyl)
4 the cinema.
In countries with highly developed media systems, all these industries—print, radio, television
broadcasting, music and film—have undergone profound change, primarily in terms of:
• delivery (from analogue to digital means)
• method (from hard copy to virtual copy in the case of print; and, in the case of broadcasting,
changes relating to the radio frequency spectrum, satellites and cables
• content
• program schedules.
These events have had economic, social and political implications, and have led to technical,
regulatory and conceptual transformations.
We now have televisions that also function as personal computers (‘smart TVs’)—leading to
wider use of broadband services, including the internet—and video services are increasingly
delivered via our mobile phones. In light of these evolving technologies, regulators such as the
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) find themselves having to reconsider
the definition of media markets. Digital media services provide a diverse array of media forms and
content choices, and this places pressure on traditional media, requiring it to be more informative
and competitive. How traditional media industries respond to the digital media environment is an
ongoing process as technology and audience expectations continue to change.

For example, a Cisco-commissioned study in 2008 reported that where an average of fourteen
hours per week was spent viewing television, twenty-two hours were spent on the internet (Hendry,
2008). Many theorists reasonably predicted that engagement with traditional broadcasting was
in decline (Levinson, 2009; Tapscott, 2009). We should, however, be cautious in anticipating the
‘death of broadcasting’ (Given, 1998). After all, the introduction of radio did not see the complete
demise of print, nor television the demise of radio. Indeed, the Australian Multi-Screen Report found
that for the first quarter of 2014, viewing of broadcast television by Australians was, on average,
approximately three hours per day on in-home television sets, or ninety-three hours and sixteen
minutes (93:16) each month, even as the options for accessing television and other video content
increased significantly: ‘Many age groups have increased their TV viewing year-on-year, and across
the population people watched an additional 37 minutes of broadcast television per month in the
quarter’ (Nielsen, OzTAM, Regional TAM 2014: 46–7). By comparison, Australians spent 7:48 hours
per month in the quarter viewing video online on a personal computer or laptop (e.g. streamed video
such as internet-delivered catch-up television as well as other content) (Nielsen, OzTAM, Regional
TAM, 2014: 2). Future services, however, offering potentially disruptive technologies such as video
on demand (VOD) from the likes of Netflix might yet impact on viewing patterns of broadcast TV
into 2015 and beyond (Scott, 2015). And consider this: photo- and video-sharing social site Snapchat
might be the next big threat not only to television but also to Google and Facebook. As Nicholas
Carlson recounts from the United States:
The most popular TV show of fall 2014 was NBC’s broadcast of ‘Sunday Night Football.’ It
averaged 21 million viewers per week.
The strongest cable show was AMC’s ‘The Walking Dead.’ Its midseason finale, in
November, reached 14.8 million people.
Big numbers, right?
Try this one: 24.79 million.
That is the number of people who, on the evening of January 26, 2015, and over the next
24 hours, watched a video broadcast on their phones depicting the sights and sounds of New
York’s ‘Snowpocalypse.’
Unlike ‘Sunday Night Football’ and ‘The Walking Dead,’ the camera operators for the
‘Snowpocalpyse’ broadcast were not professionals.
(Carlson, 2015)
Remember that much of what has been considered

‘new media’ is no longer very new, and often the ‘players’ Have you watched 3DTV? Does it revolutionise the televisual
or content creators in this area are not media professionals experience, or is it just bad for your optical health? (Note
that it does come with health warnings.)
but the wider public. It seems reasonable, then, to question
what happens to the old ‘new media’, a point taken up
later in this chapter.
What exactly is ‘media’, and what does it mean to us?

The traditional Western media forms, such as the press and, later, broadcasting, were originally
meant to be independent institutions, empowering the people of liberal democracies (see Alexander,
1981). There is a well-established political dimension to the way the media functions in its role
as the ‘fourth estate’ (see Chapter 3). According to this view, the media ensures accountability by
acting as a ‘watchdog’ and by keeping the public informed about what politicians are doing on their
behalf or about important events or issues that should be raised publicly, for example. In the case of
print, this important role dates back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and was performed
by journalists in the public interest (the first estate being God, the second the Crown, and the third
the government) (Schultz, 1998: 48). For more than two centuries, the traditional media forms have
been largely defined by geography and limited by political and cultural boundaries. New digital
technologies and the increasing array and distribution of ideas, choice and opportunities have
allowed innovative methods of communication to develop in the spheres of finance, the economy,
government, work, health, entertainment and leisure. All this has meant massive change for the
traditional media.
While print media forms such as pamphlets, newspapers,

Mass media: media for a large group of individuals engaging magazines and books have existed for centuries, the term
in similar activities, such as watching a particular television
mass media gained widespread use in the 1920s with the
show during prime time (7pm to 9pm) or reading the Saturday
edition of a newspaper.
creation of nationwide radio networks such as the ABC
in Australia. It was then used with reference to the later
Media industries: industries that are involved in developing,
producing and disseminating content through a wide variety introduction of television. Essentially, it is media for a
of formats including the press, electronic publishing, large group of individuals engaging in similar activities.
telecommunications, radio, music, cinema and television. The various media industries are involved in developing,
producing and disseminating content through a wide
variety of formats, including the press, electronic publishing, telecommunications, radio, music,
cinema and television.
Using a different term, Denis McQuail describes the media as an institution (or institutions) with
the central aim of producing and distributing knowledge in the widest sense of the word, reflecting
that such knowledge ‘enables us to make some sense of our experience of the social world, even
if the “taking of meaning” occurs in relatively autonomous and very diversified ways’ (McQuail,
2005: 81). Stuart Cunningham and Graeme Turner add a further clarification to this definition of
the media’s role in society, observing that in an ever more commercial environment, ‘the media are
increasingly providing entertainment rather than information—and thus attempting to second-guess
people’s taste preferences before information needs’ (Cunningham & Turner, 2010: 5). As a result,
it is important when studying the media and its functions to be able to deconstruct the messages
delivered by the media we consume—be it a television or radio program, music track, a newspaper
article or film.
The word ‘media’ means middle and is a term purposely used to describe its location between
the media industry or institution creating the content (the sender) on the one hand and the audience
member (or receiver) on the other. Many years ago, Harold Lasswell, a leading American political
scientist and communications theorist, made an important statement about the media’s role
in ‘mediating’ (or acting as the conduit) between the sender and receiver, describing an act of
communication as ‘Who (says) What (to) Whom (in) What Channel (with) What Effect’ (Lasswell,
1948: 117). Lasswell’s theory of the media communication process is modelled in Figure 2.1.
Who says what by what means to whom = effect
Sender + message (content)/mode (e.g. a film) + receiver = impact of content on recipient
FIGURE 2.1 Modelling Lasswell‘s theory of media communication
By definition, mediation is a process whereby the

Mediation: a process whereby the sender uses the media
sender uses the media to relay versions of issues or events
to relay versions of issues or events to the receiver that the
(the world or reality) to the receiver that the receiver cannot
receiver cannot directly observe for him or herself.
directly observe for him or herself (O’Shaughnessy &
Stadler, 2012). However, McQuail (2005) argues that this
notion of mediation, in the sense of the media intervening between ourselves and ‘reality’, is no more
than a metaphor. According to O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, the world influences the media (just as
the media might influence the world or reality), and audiences are active in making meanings based
on their own very individual learning experiences, cultural differences and psychological make-up.
Importantly, then, audiences are not passive recipients of content, and we might better understand
our relationship to the world and the media via O’Shaughnessy and Stadler’s model of the world–
media–audience relationship in Figure 2.2 below (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2008: 79). The double
arrows stress that the world (or reality) and audiences have a mutual impact on the media.
Media representations
The world/reality Media constructions Audiences
Media interpretations
FIGURE 2.2 The reciprocal nature of media communication
The media and the languages, sounds and images used in creating content (be it a television
show or movie) are cues that audiences draw on (along with their education, family, friends,
religion and the like) to make sense of the world and to construct ‘reality’. We could say that the
media is a system of ‘representation’ (a concept that will be revisited in Chapter 3 but which here
means something that looks like, resembles or represents something else). However, because all
representations come from humans (via the media organisations they work for), they come from
a particular position and are, therefore, not completely unbiased but relative. Further to this, the
media can only represent issues, events, people and other things of the real world, giving a very
realistic impression but never delivering actuality. That is, ‘realistic’ media is constructed through
selected camera angles and lighting, the omission (editing) of material and, increasingly, digital
photographic enhancements and other selection techniques. While offering a re-creation of the
world, the media plays an important role in society.
McQuail (1987) argues that the traditional media serves four main needs:
1 diversion, whereby there is an emotional release (for example, from day-to-day stressors)
2 personal relationship, where the media both provides company for the individual when
alone and serves as a point of conversation with others
3 surveillance, wherein the media delivers information about (or a version of) issues and
events
4 personal identity, as the individual comes to interactively locate (conceptualise, compare
and contrast) themselves in relation to social practices or other ‘agencies of socialisation’,
to use Giddens’s term, which includes family, peers and mass media (Giddens, 1993:
76–80).
This final need of identity formation has been highlighted by audience-reception studies
underlining the theory that ‘the presentation of social reality influences perceptions of collective and
individual identity and the socialization process’ (Hall, 1994: 189). That is, ‘language’ (comprising the
visual language of television, film and other media industries) and culture provide representations
that produce meanings (Hall, 1997a, 1997b). These meanings regulate social practices, affect people’s
conduct and, as a consequence, have real practical influence. There are, however, a number of
widely divergent perspectives on the role of the media in society, which offer a more complex
understanding of the media as more than simply industries and

Do you think it is true that Rupert Murdoch is the technologies, on the one hand, and audiences and what they ‘do’
last ‘tycoon’ or media player of real significance in with the media, on the other. Remember that radio, television,
the new media age?
cinema and the internet are all just inventions. It is what we do
with them, and for what reason, which is significant to making
sense of the media-rich world around us.
Understanding the media’s role in society

A broad approach to making sense of the media’s role in society—its process and effects—is through
structuralism and semiology. As predominantly sociological methods of enquiry, their focus is
on media systems and organisations and their relationship
to the wider society (McQuail, 2010). The concern is with
Structuralism and semiology: the study of signs whereby how meanings are produced or structured through codes or
the focus is on media systems and organisations and their
rules and discourses. Each of the media industries produces
relationship to the wider society (McQuail, 2005).
texts, which are a collection of still or moving images and/or
Texts: collections of still or moving images and/or sounds
functioning as a group to create meaning. All media sounds, functioning as a group to create meaning. Radio and
industries produce texts, and anything that generates television, for example, produce programming content; the
meaning through signifying practices can be called a text. press and publishing industries produce newspapers, books
and magazines; advertisers create advertisements. Anything
that generates meaning through signifying practices, such
as clothing, music, television programs, images, sporting events, and podcasts, can be called a
text. Indeed, a media text can take the form of a conversation, a book or article, a photograph
containing a number of visual elements, a piece of music, a television show, a speech or a public
demonstration, among other examples. The problem with the structuralist and semiotic approach
is that understanding and meaning are largely subjective to particular individuals and cultures. For
example, what we wear differs around the globe, as does the meaning conveyed by our clothing.
Clothes can reflect cultural heritage (a Muslim woman might wear an abaya, an Indian woman a
sari, an Ethiopian a gabi) or subcultural or subgroup identity (police, nurses, firefighters); colours
also have different cultural meanings (the West, for example, favours a white wedding and black for
mourning, but in East India, the bride traditionally wears red, because white signifies death). But
these categories are broad generalisations. Because interpretation is largely subjective, any research
findings (conclusions) using this approach are more difficult
to replicate.
Behaviouralism or empiricism: psychological methods Another means of analysing the media is via
that focus on human behaviours, actions or acts rather than behaviouralism or empiricism. These are psychological
the characteristics of industries.
methods that focus on human behaviours, actions or
acts rather than the characteristics of industries. This
experimental method of research treats media use as a form of rational, motivated action, where users
choose, process and respond to communication messages (McQuail, 2005: 20). Content analysis was
devised as a quantifiable and systematic method for the description and analysis of the meaning of
media messages (Sinclair, 2010b: 22), while mass media content was understood to produce direct,
immediate behavioural reactions among audiences, like a ‘magic bullet’. This ‘magic bullet’ theory
has not gained wide acceptance, however, largely because it is not based on empirical analysis
but rather on commonly held beliefs about human behaviour that assume people to be similarly
controlled by their biology so that they react more or less homogeneously to whatever ‘stimuli’
they are exposed to (Lowery & DeFleur, 1995: 400). The empirical approach continues to be used
today, but ongoing technological and social change means that valid and reliable generalisations
about the effects of the media can quickly become outdated. For example, the 1938 radio play by
Orson Welles that had over a million Americans believing they were being invaded by Martians (as
discussed by Professor Howard Cantril in his famous 1940 study of the psychology of panic), would
probably not spark the same fearful reaction today due to the immediacy of technology and the
fact-finding inclination of users (see Cantril, Gaudet & Herzog, 1940).
Yet another way of understanding media texts and
audiences is through the political economy tradition, Political economy: an empirical approach to understanding
which takes an empirical approach to understanding the the economic structures and dynamics of media industries
economic structures and dynamics of media industries and the ideological content of media.
and the ideological content of media. Fundamental to
this approach is a consideration of who has ownership and control of the media, and of how
media market forces operate. That is, media activity is seen as an economic process resulting
in a commodity—media content or product, or audiences for advertisers (McQuail, 2005:
99–100). Important questions in this approach would focus on mergers and acquisitions of media
organisations such as Time/Warner/AOL, Bertelsmann AG or Vivendi/Universal (see www.cjr.org/
resources/index.php for a current and comprehensive list of what these and other major media
companies own worldwide) and specifically on the implications of such control over vast amounts
of content for global consumption. For example, Disney controls film through Lucas Film, Marvel
Entertainment and Touchstone Pictures (and through the companies Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar
and Walt Disney Animation Studios); television through multiple national and cable television
networks; music through Walt Disney Records and Hollywood Records; and numerous print titles
via its book and magazine publishing businesses—as well as toys (including The Baby Einstein
Company), theme parks and UTV Software Communications. With media organisations wielding
such power, questions arise over the ways in which they might seek to influence government
policy in order to retain a dominant position in the market. And perhaps even more concerning
is the extent to which these top media companies—through the vast amount of content created,
controlled and filtered to the wider public—might influence the minds and behaviours of
consumers.
In conceptualising ‘the media’, theorists have used the term ‘consciousness industry’ to argue
that the media plays a substantial role in forming our consciousness—what we think, how we think
and what we think about (Cunningham & Turner, 1997: 6; see also Enzensberger, 1974). If this is so,
then the media is extremely influential in our lives. It is important, though, to acknowledge audiences’
capacity to negotiate and produce meaning from media texts that might be different from the
intended meaning or preferred reading of the producer (the media). It is also probably inaccurate
to use the word ‘industry’ to denote media organisations and what they offer us (consciousness)
as we settle into the ‘information age’. The problem with such a label, as John Hartley points out,
is that:
Firms produce goods or services, while ‘industries’ are abstract aggregations of firms, actions,
prices and the rest. ‘Industry’ is often used more loosely, interchangeably with business,
trade, market, or even community … This does not mean that the term is useless or a lie; it
means that it must be used with care, carrying with it a full trail of analytical explanation. But
instead, media studies imported it as self-evident and as real, with connotations that endowed
vertically integrated industrial corporations not only with moral qualities (chiefly evil), but
also with exorbitant or ‘fabulous powers’.
(Hartley, 2009: 232)
Hartley (2009) argues here that the term ‘industry’ brings connotations of power, control, hidden
agendas and the objectification of audiences and consumers, which in turn provoke moralistic or
ideological misgivings about wealth creation per se. A reasonable question has now arisen about
whether it is possible to reconfigure the relationship between producer and consumer on more
equal terms. Over forty years ago, Alvin Toffler (1970) used the term ‘prosumer’ when he predicted
that the role of producers and consumers would begin to blur and merge. And Don Tapscott uses
the term ‘prosumption’ (production plus consumption) in his book The Digital Economy: Promise
and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence (Tapscott, 1995). More recently, Axel Bruns has used
the term ‘produsers’ to describe participants in interactive spaces who both consume and produce
content interchangeably and often at the same time (Bruns, 2007: 6). What is undeniable is that
the top-down flow of information from a few companies
To blog or not to blog? Is this a real question for you? Or to a mass audience has given way to the distribution and
perhaps the question for you is not whether to blog but which sharing of user-created information. This leads us to ask
type of blog to choose.
how new media is defined and understood.’
What is digital or ‘new’ media?

Social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, hi5, Xanga, Bebo and many
others are what we would call new media or social media. The term ‘new media’ comprises
content that is created, stored or retrieved in digital form, encompassing text, still pictures, audio
and video. New media forms are differentiated from legacy media in that they are instantaneous,
globally accessible, fast and efficient ways of passing on news and information. New media has also
created an almost virtual world. Games such as Second Life and Minecraft, where the player uses
an avatar, creates and ‘lives’ in a virtual world and becomes
‘someone else’, offer an escape from reality. Then there are
New media: media that includes content created, stored Google and Wikipedia, search tool giants helping us make
or retrieved in digital form and frequently shared across
sense of the vast amounts of information online. While
social networks or social media. New media includes digital
forms of text, still pictures, audio and video. our searches are free, Google turns our clicks into money,
gaining advertising revenue when we visit their sites. The
advantage of this behavioural marketing, from a user perspective, is that the advertisements we see
are based on our own search terms or are tailor-made for people likely to buy the product or service.
Through the processes of digitisation, convergence and globalisation (or marketisation), the
media—which plays a role in all our cultural activities—is being reconceived on many levels. The
media (and what it does) is no longer a distinct sphere of life—offering, for example, print, television
or radio services alone—but permeates everything, from the design of cars, phones, software,
furniture and clothing to new options for shopping and banking. Indeed, the traditional (usually
analogue) media—including print, radio, film and television—is a ‘one-to-many broadcast system’
(see Barr, 2000), in contrast to the many-to-many interactive paradigm of today’s new digital media.
A useful way of thinking about the new media is
through the concept of convergence, a term used to Convergence: the process whereby the previously separate
describe how the previously separate businesses of media, businesses of media, telecommunications and computing/
telecommunications, and computing and information information technology have come together, or converged, to
offer interdependent services via digital networks.
technology have come together, or converged, to offer
interdependent services via digital networks.
For example, a television show (content) can be delivered to hand-held portable devices (computing
and information technology) over the wireless communications network (once used purely for
telecommunications). The term ‘the convergence of modes’ has been used by communications
scholar Ithiel de Sola Pool (1983). And as early as 1979, Nicholas Negroponte of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) represented the process of convergence using three overlapping circles,
which he characterised as the broadcast and motion picture industry, the computer industry and the
print and publishing industry, predicting that the overlap between the three circles would become
almost total by 2000 (Gordon, 2003). More recently this conceptual tool has been used by Australian
scholars Trevor Barr (2000: 22–5) and Terry Flew (2014). At its most basic level, Barr describes the
functional convergence between information technology (process), telecommunications (carriage)
and media (content). And Flew talks about the three Cs: (computing and information technology,
communications networks and content (media). Both authors consider the complex interaction
of traditional or legacy media businesses with users’ expectations that programs or content will
be available at their convenience and will be coupled with greater interactivity where choice is
important. As a consequence of convergence, program producers and content deliverers now have
to consider what audiences do with new media if they want to engage these audiences.
Fundamental to convergence is the digitisation of data
and globalisation. Digitisation is the process of converting
information (usually analogue) into a digital format or a Digitisation: the process of converting information (usually
analogue) into a digital format or a series of zero and one
series of zero and one digits (called binary code). What
digits (called binary code).
this means is that all information (whether from radio,
television, newspapers, movies or blogs) is encoded in
exactly the same format, eliminating distinctions between
their forms and thus the need for multiple devices. Or as McQuail puts it, ‘information of all kinds
and in all formats [is] carried with the same efficiency and also intermingled’ (McQuail, 2005:
39). That is, there is no reason why we should not use the laptop and a wireless connection for
socialising, entertainment, communication, work, gaming, research and shopping—as indeed many
users do. Tapscott has found that internet users (particularly those born between January 1977 and
December 1997) are ‘more likely to turn on the computer and simultaneously interact in several
different windows, talk on the telephone, listen to music, do homework, read a magazine, and
watch television. TV has become like background MUZAK for them’ (Tapscott, 2009: 20).
Clearly, the ability to access television via the internet might appeal to many consumers, rather
than running a computer and a television at the same time. What Tapscott points to is the trend
for television viewing to be just one of many simultaneous tasks that new (new) media users are
engaged in at any given time. Again, it is too early to call the death of traditional media since there
is a body of evidence demonstrating continuity in the mass
audience (in relation to Australia’s public broadcasters, see,
Are you an early transitioner? Both my nine-year-old and
six-year-old check school emails alongside posts from for example, von Hasebrink, 1997; Krotz & von Hasebrink,
fellow clan members on Clash of Clans while working on the 1998; Cinque, 2009,). McQuail argued in 2005 that it was
computer in Mathletics and engaging with digital books, ‘too early to conclude that the mass audience will fade
games and Skype. They, like their peers, watch very little away. It still exists, albeit in somewhat new forms, and the
television, looking to their single-screen media device for
mass media industries have shown a remarkable capacity to
applications anywhere, any time.
survive in familiar forms’ (McQuail, 2005: 450).
Program producers and content deliverers have to
consider what audiences do with new media in order to engage them. But as users themselves
create and disseminate content of interest to themselves and their peers, this will be an ongoing and
dynamic process as technology and audience expectations develop, vary and adjust.
As noted above, globalisation has also helped to
drive the ‘digital age’. In his influential work The Rise of
Globalisation: a process whereby industries are operating the Network Society, Manuel Castells states that a global
increasingly on an international basis as a result of the
economy produces a marketplace that is vastly different
deregulation of communications industries and improved
communications technologies. from what consumers have previously had access to
(Castells, 1996). A global marketplace operates within
an electronic economy, where information is a form of

currency that can be created and disseminated instantly and universally, and where capital is
managed on a 24-hour basis in globally integrated financial markets. Moreover, despite protectionism
and restrictions to free trade, goods, services and creative output are increasingly becoming global.
According to Yu‐li Chang (2003), the widespread use of broadcast satellites and continuing policies
of deregulation and privatisation have facilitated the evolution of media industries from a state
of internationalisation (in the 1960s–70s) to multinationalisation (in the 1980s) and globalisation
(from the 1990s onwards). By definition, globalisation is a process that sees nations integrating to
form an interdependent global society, featuring its own economy, military, police, judicial system,
parliament and media. Indeed, it is not possible to simply consider the global new (new) media
from one’s own local perspective because the medium is global. When we say that the internet is
global, our frame of reference is a medium that is not restricted by physical distance in terms of
distribution.
What is ‘new’ in new media?

In establishing what is ‘new’ in new media, it is important not to simply create a list of current
technologies and uses and to declare them new, because they won’t be for long. Technologies and
industries change and adapt to user demands, and media that might be termed ‘old’ now was once
‘new’ (see Flew, 2014; Pingree & Gitelman, 2003). Paul Levinson (2009) distinguishes between
the new media of websites, email and blogs, and the ‘new’ new media of social network sites like
Digg.com, social bookmarking sites like Delicious (see Figure 2.3), which allow users to locate and
save websites that match their own interests and share them with others, and virtual reality games
like Clash of Clans or Boom Beach played over a mobile application. Here, some theorists make a
distinction between social network sites (SNS) and ‘social networking sites’ because being part of
a social network, they argue, often means engaging with existing relationships online rather than
forging new ones and networking as such (see Huijser, 2008; Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Ellison et al.,
2007). Research by Ellison and colleagues has found that ‘students view the primary audience
for their profile to be people with whom they share an offline connection’ and that ‘students use
Facebook primarily to maintain existing offline relationships or to solidify what would otherwise
be ephemeral, temporary acquaintanceships’ (Ellison et al., 2007: 1155). However, we need to bear
in mind that the way social network(ing)
sites are used rapidly changes in a new
media environment, and their users and
uses are not globally uniform (more on
this in Chapter 16).
We might ask, then, how long new
media technologies stay new—that is,
what is the time frame for ‘newness’?
I am not sure there is a clear answer
to this question because technologies,
applications and user needs change
continuously, as noted above. And we

also need to consider what society does
with the media, and why it is new,
rather than just taking account of what
the new media is (see Livingstone,
1999). Certainly examples are useful,
and (at the time of writing) these might
include mobile hand-held devices such
as the iPhone and iPad, as well as the
internet and Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is second-
generation internet, a communication FIGURE 2.3 Information sharing via Delicious
platform that offers a more participatory Source: www.delicious.com. Reproduced with permission of Yahoo! Inc. © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. DELICIOUS
understanding of the internet centred on and the DELICIOUS logo are registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc.
virtual communities. The design of Web 2.0 is interactive and arguably improves the more people
use and contribute to it. The best example might be Wikipedia, which offers a vast array of amateur
scholarship on almost any topic.
New media issues

Current discourses in relation to new media include discussion of digitisation, convergence and
globalisation as forces for change. There are, however, a number of issues in the new media
environment that cause some concern, such as doubts about the accuracy of information found
online and, related to this, problems of information overload. Levinson (2009) argues that information
overload is a misnomer because users experience no more anxiety online than they do walking into
a large bookstore. Users, he contends, are capable of seeking out and accessing the information that
they are interested in and rejecting the rest. This view might, however, be too simplistic.
Tumber (2001) contends that the media’s role as the ‘fourth estate’—acting as the ‘watchdog’
of democracy and as an independent examiner of power—might well be over, as the traditional
information filters that once enabled verification of a story no longer exist. Against this background,
he argues that journalism via new electronic technologies might incorporate both orientating
journalism, where background commentary and explanation are provided to the general public,
and instrumental journalism, which makes available functional and specialised information (Tumber,
2001: 107–8). Without doubt, there is much data available on the internet and other media devices,
but we must ask ourselves whether data is the same thing as information, and the answer is:
probably not. Exacerbating this concern is the sheer quantity of misinformation that can be found
online.
The internet and online services provide information and services, but without access to the
tools of technology—including a computer, modem, phone line, and connection to an internet
service provider (ISP)—the ability of some individuals to access and use information is diminished.
Therefore, some groups in society will enjoy an advantage
over others, not only in the tools that some have access to,
Digital divide: the situation in which some groups in society but in education, skills base and knowledge. This is known
enjoy an advantage over others not only in the tools that as the digital divide and occurs not only between nations
they have access to, but also in education, skills base and
but within nations as well.
knowledge. It occurs not only between nations but within
nations as well. Other issues relate to the potential of the internet and
other computer-mediated communication devices to act as
a force for freedom and democracy. Internet ‘freedom’ is
a term used by O’Loughlin (2001) both in the negative—such as freedom from unwanted ‘SPAM’
emails, or from state intervention—and in the positive, such as having (technologically enabled)
freedom to pursue one’s goals. ‘Democracy’ is a contested term, and there are many versions of
democracy—for example, representative versus direct democracy (e.g. Nieuwenhuizen, 1998).
Lincoln Dahlberg (2001) notes that the rhetoric and practice of ‘internet democracy’ has been
dominated by three leading ‘camps’:
1 communitarian, which stresses the potential of the internet to enhance communal spirit and
values
2 liberal individualist, which conceives of the internet as assisting the expression of individual
interests
3 deliberative, which promotes the internet as the means of expanding the public sphere of
rational–critical citizen discourse—a wide-ranging and autonomous information flow that should
be independent of political and corporate influence.
Theorists taking a ‘deliberative democratic’ perspective To see some of the work that is being done from a
believe that computer-mediated communications can deliberative democratic perspective, visit the website for the
extend power to citizens (at both local and global levels) Berkman Center for Internet and Society: cyber.law.harvard
.edu/projects/deliberation.
to participate in new democratic forums, not only
between government and the people, but also among
citizens themselves, effectively broadening the public sphere (e.g. Pavlik, 1994).Dahlberg sees the
deliberative perspective as offering a more robust political model than the communitarian or the
liberal individualist perspectives, which, he argues, tend to present a unitary subject—the isolated
ego or the undifferentiated communal subject—and therefore neglect the multiple differences
between subjects within pluralist societies (Dahlberg, 2001: 616).
However, Mark Poster questions the term ‘democracy’ in relation to computer-mediated
communications, arguing that theorists need to be careful not to adopt a framework that limits
the discussion to modern patterns of interpretation from the outset. Poster argues that the internet
cannot be conceptualised simply as an extension of existing institutions and that we need to focus
on the ways in which it establishes new social functions (Poster, 1997: 213). Ultimately, though,
he concedes the best we can do is ‘to examine phenomena such as the internet in relation to new
forms of the old democracy, while holding open the possibility that what might emerge might be
something other than democracy in any shape that we may conceive it given our embeddedness in
the present’ (Poster, 1997: 214).
Howard Tumber (2001) dismisses the notion of a single public sphere as obsolete where various
groups maintain their own deliberative democratic forums. Gitlin (1998), on the other hand, is
concerned that the increase in separate public ‘sphericules’ might impair the formation of a unitary
public sphere, pointing out that the argument proposing that the sole public sphere becomes
redundant where deliberative gatherings occur presumes that a rough equivalence of resources
exists for securing overall justice. It also presumes that society is without divisions that could be
made worse in the absence of repeated negotiation between members of different groups.
These issues are further complicated by the difficulty in determining what is acceptable ‘speech’
in an online forum. Since ideology differs around the globe (for example, a terrorist in one country
is considered a freedom fighter in another), how the ‘rules’ are decided will also vary. While there
are content-filtering software options for children—such as ‘NetNanny’—and ‘family-friendly’
service providers such as the ABC and SBS, only two solutions are available for adults. The first
is to rely on a single authority or moderator (an idea that evokes George Orwell’s all-seeing ‘Big
Brother’ and that arguably works against the general notion of free speech and expression), and
the second is self-regulation or ‘netiquette’, which encourages users not to become irrational or
overly emotional, or to use the forum for commercially oriented goals. O’Loughlin argues that these
options involve, simultaneously, a voluntary loss of freedom (the freedom to read or say anything)
as well as an increase in another kind of freedom (freedom from unwanted information or influence)
(O’Loughlin, 2001: 604).
Overall, in terms of equality, O’Loughlin regards netiquette as being the preferable approach,
because it removes the hierarchical (probably political) influence of the moderator (O’Loughlin,
2001). Additionally, warning codes for content could be offered on sites, much the same as those
offered on free-to-air television, or cigarette packets. Furthermore, netiquette and warning codes
could be combined with self-regulation and supervision of children by parents and teachers. While
imposing an additional cost, another means is software at the user-end that filters content. Despite
the various problems in determining appropriate ‘control’ of the internet, the future is still being
shaped, and there is much to be optimistic about.
Or is it just hype? Karim H Karim has investigated the promotion of computer-mediated
communication using Jacques Ellul’s work on the role of myth in propaganda, and concludes that
‘The implications of information society’s propaganda [be it political or commercial] are enormous.
Its ultimate aim seems to be complete absorption of everyone into a perfectly working system
of production and consumption that benefits only a few. It conflates data and information with
knowledge and wisdom, promising a paradisical state of
Propaganda: the strategic use of print or broadcasting to happiness for all who plug into the internet’ (Karim, 2001:
influence the hearts and minds of citizens. 130).
‘Plugging into the internet’ will never bring absolute
freedom of expression, ubiquitous content dissemination
or universal and unfettered access to information
due to issues of cost, access, skill level and individual
inclination to use the technology—on this point Karim
is correct. Indeed, there are many good reasons to stop
and evaluate how society is progressing in the age of new
media. Just consider the gap between ‘the haves’ and ‘the
have-nots’; the surveillance of our private lives; cultural

commodification; and the effects of increased human–
machine relationships, including the implications of the
computer user’s isolation and anonymity, and of reduced
self-and-other awareness. On top of this, we wonder
where our personal data is stored and, importantly, who
has access to it. Individual content providers, corporations
and governments must determine how much information
FIGURE 2.4 Google Earth: Where do you want to go today? is held about subscribers and whether this (meta)data
is cross-matched across services (for example, from one
government department or private corporation to other government departments and corporations).
Certainly interactivity is a key aspect of new media. Unlike traditional media, which selectively
excludes as well as includes information for public consumption, a great deal of content available
via the internet gives power to users to choose what information they will consume or disregard
and when they will do so. That is, fewer time restrictions mean that users have greater control over
access to content as well as the production of content. Overall, it would seem that the internet is the
medium of the consumer—quick, efficient, varying, anonymous and non-committing.
Howard Rheingold was one of the first to argue that the internet is an ‘anarchic, unkillable,
censorship resistant, aggressively non-commercial, voraciously growing conversation among
millions of people in dozens of countries’ (Rheingold, 1993: 118). David Brown questions these
assumptions, however: ‘[N]oncommercial? Anarchic? No way! For one thing, the launch of the
internet, and its remarkable rise into the high-flying reaches of business development, was initially
triggered by public funding. Now it is managed by a group of telecom companies. Its continued
operation depends not only upon their physical infrastructure but upon a distinct software protocol
as well’ (Brown, 1997: 180). Other critics also see the ideals of cyberspace as illusory. Kevin Robins
argues that interaction in cyberspace represents a withdrawal from reality to be among like-minded
people in an artificial space, avoiding the wider problems of the ‘real’ world (Robins, 1999: 166).
However, Brittney Chenault (1998) says it is inconceivable that people leave their foibles at the
‘cyberdoor’; rather, they are more likely to take their real-life problems and personalities to their
virtual lives. All this might lead us to question how one arrives at a perception of rational citizen
participation in a globalising, liberalising, decentralising, converging world of media sound bites,
manufactured personalities, commercial and political propaganda, and artificial lifestyles.
This chapter has outlined some of the key methods for conceptualising media
SUMMARY functions in the West and the resulting implications for audiences and users.
Current discourse in relation to new (new) media includes discussion of digitisation,
convergence and globalisation as forces for change. The social changes brought
about by new (new) media, technological convergence and globalisation, as outlined
above, are giving users an increased choice of media in different formats and on
different platforms. In this chapter, we have observed the following:
As content—be it text, sound or vision—is made available from multiple

sources, it becomes apparent that audiences will continue to fragment
Changes to employment patterns and lifestyles will dramatically affect when
audiences choose to watch and listen, and what they watch and listen to.
Issues of concern include information overload, the accuracy of the information
found online, cyber-bullying and cyberstalking, and privacy of information and
security.
As media and communications students, we must keep in mind that the media
does not simply reflect what or who we are. Rather, it plays an active role in
shaping social relations.
REVISION QUESTIONS
1 What are consciousness industries? Why is this term used? Give examples.
2 To what extent are media industries able to exert direct or indirect control over the
thoughts and actions of audiences?
3 How should governments regulate the structures of ownership and control of media
industries, or the distribution and consumption of media products?
4 What role do media industries have in the maintenance or dilution of democratic
institutions?
5 To what extent does the new (new) media allow for true interactivity? Consider your own
definition of interactivity.
Further reading
Barr, T 2000, Newmedia.com.au: The Changing Face of Australia’s Media and Communications, Allen &
Unwin, Sydney.
Carlson, N 2015, ‘You Think Snapchat Is for Sexting, But It’s Actually Giant Threat to Google, Facebook,
and TV’, Business Insider Australia, 28 February, <www.businessinsider.com.au>.
Castells, M 1996, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, volume 1, The Rise of the Network
Society, Blackwell, Oxford.
Flew, T 2014, New Media: An Introduction, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
Levinson, P 2009, New, New Media, Pearson, Sydney.
Nielsen, OzTAM, Regional TAM 2014, Australian Multi-Screen Report: Quarter 1 2014, <www.nielsen.com/
content/dam/nielsenglobal/au/docs/reports/australian-multi-screen-report-q1-2014-final.pdf>.
Scott, M C 2015 ‘Netflix Arrival Will Be a Tipping Point for TV in Australia’, The Conversation, 12 March,
<theconversation.com>.
Tapscott, D 2009, Grown Up Digital, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Weblinks
Delicious (a social bookmarking site): Theory.org.uk (a website about the mass media
www.delicious.com and its relationship to popular culture):
Wired magazine (information on new media in www.theory.org.uk
society and future trends): www.wired.com.

AMU2450 Week1Communication Digital Media and Everyday Life - (2 What Is The Media and Is Digital Media New' - Toija Cinque)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMU2450 Week1Communication Digital Media and Everyday Life - (2 What Is The Media and Is Digital Media New' - Toija Cinque)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8

Another night in the life of Family X

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN FROM THIS CHAPTER

ongoing process as technology and audience expectations continue to change.

Remember that much of what has been considered

What exactly is ‘media’, and what does it mean to us?

While print media forms such as pamphlets, newspapers,

Who says what by what means to whom = effect

Sender + message (content)/mode (e.g. a film) + receiver = impact of content on recipient

FIGURE 2.1 Modelling Lasswell‘s theory of media communication

By definition, mediation is a process whereby the

understanding of the media as more than simply industries and

Understanding the media’s role in society

What is digital or ‘new’ media?

an electronic economy, where information is a form of

What is ‘new’ in new media?

continuously, as noted above. And we

New media issues

have-nots’; the surveillance of our private lives; cultural

As content—be it text, sound or vision—is made available from multiple

Tapscott, D 2009, Grown Up Digital, McGraw-Hill, New York.

You might also like