I've always been a great fan of literature. I read piles and piles of books, and fill journals with my own work, hoping to partly mimic my literary idols (like Nabokov, and Márquez) and partly invent a new voice for myself in a whirlpool where only the greatest writers have lifejackets. It has always been a dream of mine to have some of my work published—a dream that is all too real now, with Media 2.0.
In the past decade (surely, no more than a decade), I've realized just how incredible and empowering Media 2.0 is. Web 2.0 tools, such as wikis, blogs, free and open-source software for media editing (e.g., Windows Movie Maker 2, Apple iMovie HD, Avid Free DV, Wax, DDClip Free, HyperEngine-AV) to name a few, have really helped "the many [wrestle] power from the few," as Lev Grossman of Time magazine wrote in the "Time's Person of the Year: You" issue. Not only can we produce our own articles and videos, we can have them fine-tuned by the whole world (how's that for an editor?) for free. Wikis allow for open editing, something that has helped make Wikipedia one of the most reliable and up-to-date encyclopedias of our time. Despite the criticism that Wikipedia allows for erroneous entries, at any given time, the error count in Wikipedia is equal to that of Britannica. Examples like the aforementioned are the exact reason why no one from "the few" is immune to the voices of "the many," certainly and most importantly not the media.
Before the Internet came, I remember, fondly, waking up on Sundays to huge, fluffy pancakes and watching my father struggle with the New York Times crossword puzzle. I also remember how crucial it was to read the paper, if you wanted to join in on conversations at the dinner table. My parents and their friends always had the authority on news and popular opinions, which they, in turn, got from the few journalists who wrote the news; life was so out-of-reach for a preteen (I believe the new term is "tween"). Suddenly, Internet came knocking on everyone's door. The whole neighborhood got AOL (America OnLine) and we all gathered around the computer as our technologically advanced guest showed us a new dimension.
Even in the immediate post-internet era, the World Wide Web was just another authority on information: we could now access The New York Times via internet, but it was no different from reading it in the physical form. However, curiosity and courage from people like you and me (perhaps a bit more well-read in technology than I) made the Internet of the 21st century much more user-friendly. Now, we have the tools to make the news. We have the power to be more selective. If we can't find information that interests us, we can make it ourselves.
In this era, we are the media. Citizen journalism, riding on the backs of open platforms such as YouTube and CurrentTV, proliferate daily. If the (old) media rolled their eyes at open platforms for amateur journalism a few years ago, their eyes have since been unrolled: they can't ignore the fact that YouTube has more than 42% of the market for online video-sharing. Nor can they ignore the fact that their own websites have been financially sinking (according to the annual report on American Journalism, The State of the News Media 2008). The problem? The criticisms are legitimate: amateur videos are... well, amateur. Most undeniably, home videos posted on the internet are still inaccurate sources for world news. That said, the professional media have started to explore the opportunities that the internet has to offer: "The most promising element heading into 2008 may be innovation. The news industry now appears to be taking a new technology in earnest. Sites are evolving quickly and, in a new development, the mainstream media are now among the more experimental players."
The State of News Media 2008
So, what's in store for Media 2.0? In terms of news, there will still be a dominant, reliable source. As I write this, CBS is in the midst of acquiring CNet, as will Microsoft attempt the same with Yahoo. However, as the old fogies at ABC, CBC, BBC, etc., open their minds, we can expect to see articles online that allow for comments (which we already have) and open editing via wikis. We can expect more exploration into internet videos—a realm that's to be more riveting and current than TV, according to Kurt Andersen's New York magazine article, "You Must Be Streaming." We can also expect a universal shift from TV shows to homemade internet videos, as viewers’ growing interest in the latter continue.
As well, there are a plethora of other gadgets and gizmos to be expected. The most prominent example: Bill Gates predicts that "natural user interface" technology (i.e., voice and facial expressions recognition will replace the mouse and keyboard), according to David Graham's thestar.com article "The Future's in the Wink of an Eye." Most importantly, there will be battles. Battles for intellectual property (e.g., whether sharing is illegal or not), for a new code of ethics and morals in the 21st century (e.g., will "freedom of the press" allow for dangerous and harmful words? Will the internet provide widespread of terrorism with even fewer boundaries?), for new rules in communications (e.g., who, now, will decide on the birth of new words? Will "LOL" and "TTYL" be entries in the Oxford English Dictionary?). Additionally, will the freedom of internet press just provide an even larger whirlpool within which it'll be even harder to discern good from bad writing?
I'd like to end with Ben Mutzabaugh's answer to the last question: "In print it's easy to feel you are at odds with readers because people will find one little thing wrong. So as a journalist you get defensive. The readers on a blog chime in and help you. They want you to get the story right." What a relief, for an aspiring journalist like myself, to hear that Media 2.0 has got my back.
----------------------
Additional Resources:
1. Briggs, Mark. "Journalism 2.0: How to Survive and Thrive". J-Lab. May 24, 2008
2. Tapscott, Don, and Williams Anthony D.. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment