Living in the Information
Age: A New Media Reader, Second Edition is a collection of readings examining the new media revolution, the
rapidly changing technology behind it, and its effect on our culture. Editor
Erik P. Bucy begins with selections that survey the growing number of
communications channels made possible by advances in telephone, television and
networked computer technology. We’re introduced to the idea of
“mediamorphosis,” in which existing media adapt to a changing communications environment,
and Paul Saffo’s “30-year rule” for the acceptance of new ideas in a culture.
Readings then examine the effect of convergence of computing,
telecommunications and media — particularly, the interactivity that allows — on
content providers and the audience. Varying views of media ownership are
considered; in contrast to Ben H. Bagdikian, author of The New Media
Monopoly, Benjamin Compaine
suggests corporate ownership of media companies isn’t necessarily having an
adverse effect on news coverage and local content; Jeff Sharlet, on the other
hand, examines corporate control of music and radio stations by Clear Channel
Communications.
The Internet’s effect on our
personal lives is considered, including ideas such as “Googling,” or searching
the Web for information on friends, colleagues and potential dates; the realism
of video games; blogging; and online dating. Media saturation is examined,
including use of the remote control as a coping strategy in a world with
multiple channels; the fight against “spam” e-mail; and the concept of “data
smog,” that we are creating more information than we are able to process.
Bucy considers the promise — often unrealized — of networked
computing technology in the economy and the classroom. He offers critiques of
technology culture, including Clifford Stoll’s comparison of the “information
superhighway” to actual superhighways that exalted the automobile above all
else; a more optimistic view of an Internet that allows stronger social ties
over large distances; and considerations of PowerPoint and the Y2K bug that
question whether we’ve put too much faith in technology.
He offers views of new media and networked technology that
allow for greater public participation in politics, as well as more effective
political dissent, but also raise warnings about the potential for
fragmentation leading to polarization and cybercascades, or as Cass Sunstein
observes, the idea that if people lack reliable information to the contrary,
information “can become quite widespread and entrenched, even if it is entirely
wrong.” He considers the digital divide, focusing on the idea that gaps in the
use of technology by income, race and gender are only a symptom of a more
complex cultural divide.
He considers the “old” vs. “new” battle, as Stanford University
law Professor Lawrence Lessig describes it, between the entertainment industry,
which uses copyright law and encryption technology to protect its control over
content, and an Internet culture that resists barriers to the free exchange of
information. Finally, he considers privacy in a digital age, including the
ramifications of a computer “delete” key that doesn’t actually delete
information, as well as the use of security cameras, computer databases and
other surveillance technology that keep track of our daily routines.
The new media revolution and
increased use of networked computing technology are transforming our society in
many ways, and Bucy provides an effective overview of issues related to this
transformation. His book is structured to provide varied perspectives on each
of these issues, in articles that were written throughout the 1990s and in this
decade as the new media transformation has unfolded. This is both a strength
and a weakness. In any collection of articles, some will be stronger than
others. As with Neuman’s The Future of the Mass Audience, it’s difficult to critique these works without
considering the changes that have taken place since they were originally
published.
One important point Bucy makes
is the danger of technological determinism, the view that technology drives
changes in society. In the “digital divide” discussion, for example, selections
emphasize that differences in computer and Internet use are the result of
deep-rooted cultural and social issues that can’t be solved merely by making
computers and Internet access more available. Unfortunately, this leads to a
feeling of some hopelessness in finding a solution to this problem, which could
require vast economic, political and social resources — or, at least, considerations
that are outside the scope of mass communications studies.
Many selections are relevant to
the debate over whether publishers should continue to make news content
available for free online or put at least some of it behind a pay wall — and
whether that content should be indexed by Google and other search engines.
Readings in the copyright and regulation chapter make clear the idea of putting
content behind a pay wall may be ineffective. As the music and software
industry have learned, once content is in digital form, it’s difficult to
prevent its copying and redistribution. Cutting content off from Google, for
that matter, will make it harder for potential readers to find it. John Perry
Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation suggests musicians and other artists
should view themselves as service providers rather than product makers, and
asserts that consumers will pay, if it’s made convenient, to establish relationships
with service providers. This view could be relevant for journalism: Content
could continue to be free, but consumers could be charged to interact more
directly with journalists and readers with similar interests. Publishers also
provide the service of connecting readers and advertisers. Online, however,
this hasn’t been as lucrative. It’s possible, though, that the solution to this
problem is innovation — developing online formats that have a higher impact
(similar to full-page newspaper or magazine ads) than the pop-up, pop-under,
and competing small animated ads many publishers now provide.
Comments