0
(First drafted October, 2011)
Its definitely not a new discussion or argument, but where we get our news and how the ‘new media’ has influenced public input and what we think of as ‘journalism’, in general, gives more flavour to Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message”.
It used to be that we read the newspaper and watched the news on the TV. Done deal. Commentators were featured from time to time and a few would write letters to the editor or if they felt like expanding on their views, an op-ed. Traditional media.
Those were simpler days, albeit somewhat void of the varied and constant barrage of opinion we are used to these days. Weblogs, blogs, whatever you want to call them, started out so innocently, with regular people from regular places writing about what they cared about. People could randomly comment, adding opinion, ideas, criticism and encouragement. More often than not, these people identified themselves as who they were, communities were created, and weblogs became a ‘trusted space’ . The business world caught on and weblogs also became very effective PR machines.
When the traditional media made the leap to the world wide web, the reporting and commenting on the news changed. A newspaper would post a story on their website, but not print it in their paper. The purpose, to evoke interest in something a little more eye-catching in hopes that people would comment and therefore bring more attention to the story, and in turn sell more papers or click-throughs on the website ads.
And it wasn’t soon after that the TV news jumped on board with their version of ‘news’ weblogs. Open commenting became the norm and a new era in defining ‘freedom of speech’ took hold.
And today’s debate from all of this? How far do we go with freedom of speech? It would appear that things have teetered a bit off the totter. So much so, that the media are the ones being criticized. Their readers and viewers are not happy with the anonymous comments. The ‘trusted space’ has been seriously affected in such a way that it has turned anti-social. CBC is even reconsidering allowing anonymous comments.
Then there is Facebook, where people control who their friends are and know who there friends are. Facebook has become the new ‘trusted space’, and for good reason. Discussions and debates, ideas, criticisms and encouragements all have their place on Facebook. And not to be outdone, the ‘traditional media’ now uses Facebook as a tool to get the message out there. Users such as politicians, musicians, artists, real estate agents, grandmothers, NGO’s … all see the value in expanding their world through a mutually agreed upon method of communication.
So where will the news go from here? How will the news outlets adjust, or will they? One thing is for sure, people who don’t mind identifying themselves online will always strive for those ‘trusted spaces’. Those who choose to remain ‘anti-social’ and not use their freedom of speech in a responsible way will continue to look for ways to pollute the ‘airwaves’.
Personally, I stopped reading the local rag or watching the 6 o’clock news years ago, and have resisted visiting the aforementioned’s websites for the past couple of years. I have blocked non-spam people from my weblog, facebook and twitter and am choosing my news according to a collective sense of credibilities. I have become more focused on issues I truly care about and have annihilated the ‘noise’ from my medias. I could claim on a positive note that I am thankful for this open media I have come to participate in and hope that it continues to evolve.
That’s it for now but I’ll leave you with these McLuhan ‘messages’:
“Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication.” – McLuhan
“Far more thought and care go into the composition of any prominent ad in a newspaper or magazine than go into the writing of their features and editorials.” – McLuhan
“A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding.” – McLuhan
