I receive text messages of my Grandma. Cool, huh? She’s a very smart lady, so no wonder she’s grasped the concept. This goes without mentioning, she did have a brilliant teacher! Is the media dying, or is it willing to adapt? My Grandma adapted. She wasn’t brought up listening to this, this or even this. And maybe my children will never hear the sound of a newspapers pages being flipped. Maybe. But does that mean the end of journalism, or just the beginning of the new news.
Week two of journalism waded in unknown waters. Even the phrase ‘web iterations’ was foreign, but here goes…
The media really began with what we now call, ‘old’ media. Basically, this is the media that constituted before the digital revolution. ‘Old’ or ‘heritage’ media include:
- Newspapers
- Print magazines
- Radio
- Cable television
- Books
- Printing publications
The examples listed above are used to transmit mass communication; and therefore belong to a group called mass media. The definition of mass media, however, is no longer clear. As Beth Lane wrote in ‘What is Mass Media’, “Developing new technology breeds new questions. Should cell phones be included in a definition of mass media? What about video and computer games? Is “World of Warcraft” a mass medium strictly speaking?” Communication is a forever-changing medium, and will continue to warp the very ideas that previously defined media.
Web 1.0 was the first type of new media. It is known as the ‘information’ web, and is very advertising friendly. A web 1.0 site is static and is not interactive.
Next we saw the introduction of Web 2.0, or the ‘social’ web. This includes programs such as:
- MySpace
- Blogger
- Skype
- Flickr
Web 2.0 initiated the fear about the death of journalism. Essentially, Web 2.0 gave birth to the term ‘citizen journalist’, which allows everybody to be a journalist. Perhaps the trade is at risk?
Web 3.0 is the newest of the web iterations. It is also coined at the ‘semantic web’, with a real focus on the individual, as well as making sense of information. It’s key theory surrounds the new it-word, ‘metatagging’. Meta-tagging can be defined as “The part of your website’s HTML code that tells a search engine the relevant information for the content of our website.” (http://www.seoperformanceauditing.com/learn-seo/seo-glossary) Essentially, meta-tagging will allow us to search things like, ‘where is the cheapest place to eat mango sorbet in Queen street’, and we will be given an answer. This is technology at it’s finest.
Web 3.0 isn’t all silver lining, however. Web 3.0 will force hyperlocalisation upon us. As it finds where we are, and what we are interested in. It may shorten our line of sight, and encourage us to interact with the local news. It will also give us specific content delivery. Although this may be faster and more convenient, it may create a certain ignorance to the world around us.
Is ignorance even a valid claim? There is so much information on the web, can we possibly pull the ignorant card? More so, are we entitled to journalism? Is it a human right? Should we have to pay for it? Uncle Rupert certainly thinks so. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/26/rupert-murdoch-pathetic-paywall)
They central idea in this article, poses the question about whether the monetising system Rupert Murdoch wants to introduce, will essentially save journalism. I don’t believe it will. I disregard the premise that journalism will ever perish. Journalism is a part of who we are. It’s part of living in the 21st century. Whether paywalls are introduced, or not, journalism will go beyond this. The subscription method will support jobs, and that is a fact. We are entering the world of ‘produsage’ (Axel Bruns, QUT, 2005); a world of citizen journalism. Will this diminish the quality of journalism? Perhaps it will.
Here’s an interesting article about the demise, or not, of journalism: http://timberry.bplans.com/2009/05/is-journalism-dead-dying-or-just-faking-it.html
No comments:
Post a Comment