Media: The New media Flashcards
What is the new media?’
-Screen-based, digital technology integrating images, text, and sound.
-Involves distribution and consumption of digitised content (late 20th–21st century).
-Includes computers, tablets, smartphones, the internet, e-books, CDs, DVDs, mp3s, blogs, user-generated content (e.g., YouTube, Facebook), and interactive video games.
Technological convergence
-New media combines multiple functions in a single device (e.g., smartphones can call, text, browse, take photos, play music, and stream content).
-Digital cable and satellite TV offer customized viewing through digiboxes, downloads, and catch-up TV.
-Businesses and advertisers can reach millions through a single platform.
Blurring of boundaries (Livingstone & Bovill)
-Converging technologies merge traditionally distinct activities (e.g., work, education, and entertainment).
-Users switch between or combine tasks seamlessly.
Cultural convergence (Jenkins)
-Consumers actively seek, share, and connect information from different media sources.
-New media enhances interactivity and participation in digital culture.
Compression
-Digital tech enables the compression is signals.
-Many signals can be sent down the same cables.
-Resulting in 100+ channels in digital TV.
-Results in narrow-casting media programmes specialised for specific niches (ie. BBC for channel often).
Traditional vs New media
Traditional Media:
-Delivered through separate platforms (e.g., TV, radio, print newspapers).
-One-way communication to mass audiences (passive consumption).
-Audiences assumed to be homogeneous.
-Limited consumer participation or control (“take it or leave it” approach).
New Media Transformation:
-Technological & Cultural Convergence: Consumers influence media content rather than just receiving it from media owners.
-Greater interactivity and personalisation of media consumption.
Features of the new media (Lister et al): Digitality
-Media content is digitised into binary code.
-Enables storage, distribution, and access via digital devices (e.g., smartphones, computers, digital TV).
Features of the new media (Lister et al): Interactivity
-Consumers actively engage with media instead of passively consuming it.
-Convergence allows users to interact with multiple media forms simultaneously.
-Users can create and customize content, increasing choice and control.
Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0:
-Web 1.0: Passive consumption of pre-made content.
-Web 2.0: Users collaborate, share, and generate content (e.g., Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, social media).
Features of the new media (Lister et al): Hypertextuality
-Media content is interconnected through links, creating a “web” of information.
-Allows users to search, interact with, and customise media according to their needs.
Features of the new media (Lister et al): Dispersal
-Media is now less centralized and more tailored to individual choices.
-Internet use for shopping, entertainment, email, social media, podcasts, and downloadable content.
User-generated content:
-Media production is no longer limited to professionals.
-Example: In 2014, over 100 hours of video were uploaded to YouTube every minute.
Features of the new media (Lister et al): Virtuality
-Users immerse themselves in virtual worlds (e.g., computer games).
-People create virtual identities on social media (e.g., Twitter, YouTube, Facebook).
Features of interactivity: Jenkins (2008)
Participatory Culture:
-Consumers now produce as well as consume media content.
-Shift from passive information reception to active content creation.
-Media circulation depends on audience participation.
Collective Intelligence:
-Knowledge is shared across users worldwide.
-“None of us can know everything; each of us knows something” (Jenkins, 2004).
-Creates a new source of media power, potentially challenging traditional media owners.
Examples of Collective intelligence
-Review platforms (e.g., Amazon, TripAdvisor) counter advertising influence.
-Online user groups (e.g., health forums) allow people to share experiences and build knowledge.
Who uses the new media?
-14 hours/week online (new) vs. 12 hours/week TV viewing (trad).
-93% of households had internet (2019)
-80% of the population used the internet (2014).
-48% of adults had social media profiles (mainly Facebook).
-27 hours/week spent on TV.
-Internet ads now exceed traditional media.
-Spam is a cheap method of mass advertising.
Stratification in the new media
-Internet access and use often reflect and amplify existing social inequalities.
-Poorest families, unemployed, elderly, disabled, rural residents are disadvantaged.
-91% of those with higher education use the internet vs. 34% of those with no formal qualifications (Dutton & Blank, 2011).
-38 million adults in Great Britain used the internet daily (2014)
-6.4 million adults never used the internet, and 16% of households had no internet (2014).
Stratification: Digital Divide by Social Class
-Middle and upper classes are the biggest users of new media due to greater affordability.
-Poorest social classes have the least access, with 65% of non-internet users from the bottom two classes (Jones, 2010).
Digital Exclusion:
-A third of the population, marked by socio-economic disadvantage, is digitally excluded.
-Digital underclass forming among those with low education and no employment (Helsper, 2011).
-Even with access, disadvantaged groups lack confidence and skills to use the internet fully (Helsper, 2011).
How does this worsen inequalities?
-Digital skills acquisition progress has stalled, particularly for lower social classes (Livingstone & Wang, 2011).
-Lack of access or skills leads to social exclusion and information poverty, preventing participation in society.
-Middle class more likely to have smartphones on contracts (e.g., iPhone).
-Working class more likely to have cheaper phones (e.g., BlackBerry).
Different social networks:
LinkedIn is used by the elite (50% earn over £50,000).
Twitter and Facebook are more popular among lower-income users (Jones, 2010).
Stratification: Age differences
-Younger people are more media-savvy as they have grown up with new media (Boyle, 2007).
-16-24-year-olds are 10 times more likely to go online via mobile than those aged 55+.
/Internet access and usage declines with age.
-10% of disadvantaged 16-24-year-olds remain infrequent internet users (Jones, 2010).
OfCom findings - Age (Younger vs Older)
-Spend more time online and are greater internet users.
-More likely to have home internet access and own/use a smartphone.
-More likely to use a mobile phone for internet access.
-More confident in using new media technology.
-Use new media for fun, relaxation, and social networking (e.g., taking photos, listening to music, playing games, watching videos).
-More likely to get news from mobile devices rather than TV, radio, or newspapers.
Stratification: Gender differences
-Men are more likely to use fixed games consoles, tablet computers, and smartphones.
-Women are more likely to use e-readers for reading.
-Men spend more time watching videos online (3x more than women).
-Women report “high addiction” to mobile phones more than men.
-Young women make more calls and send/receive more texts than young men.
-Women more likely to use social networking sites.
Gender differences: Li and Kirkup’s Study (2007)
-Men are more confident with their computer skills, use the internet more for gaming and communication (email/chatrooms).
-Women are more likely to use the internet for research and study but underestimate their ability.
-Men view the internet as more of a tool for personal fun, while women see it more as a study or research tool.
New media & Social change
-Social class, age, and gender differences in new media use are diminishing.
-New media is increasingly penetrating everyday life, and almost everyone will be using new media in the future as more services move online.
-The devices used for accessing new media are continuously changing and expanding.
Location & the Global digital divide
-Wealthy western countries ** (information-rich)** have better access to new media, while poorer countries (information-poor) struggle due to lack of resources and poverty.
-Private businesses won’t provide digital networks in poorer areas due to low demand and affordability.
-Lack of access in poorer countries creates a global digital underclass.
-85% of websites are in English, limiting access for non-English speakers.
The digital divide
-In 2015, 3.2 billion people used the internet (45% of the global population).
-Europe and North America have a disproportionate share of users (28% of users, 16% of the population).
-Africa has low internet access (9.5% of users, 16% of the population).
-Even within Europe, there are significant differences in internet access (e.g., 95% in Norway vs. 51% in Romania).
Bridging the global divide?
-New media technologies contribute to globalisation by expanding activities beyond nation-state boundaries.
-New media reduce physical and social distance between people globally (e.g., through Skype).
-New media break the connection between physical location and social relationships, making distance less significant.
Example: Kenya’s connectivity
-In 2004, internet use in Africa was very low (fewer than 3 out of 100 Africans used the internet).
-Major investments in internet infrastructure since 2009, including high-speed cables, boosted connectivity in East Africa.
-Kenya saw a significant increase in broadband users, from 1.8 million to over 3 million in 12 months.
-By 2020, Kenya had over 22 million internet users, demonstrating the potential for bridging the global digital divide.
The impact of the new media
-Trad companies massively involved in new media due to conct and horizontal intergration.
-Form of synergy since new and trad inter ageing each other (ie. newspapers refer readers to their websites & printed news stories).
-New media tech is cheaper, more mobile, widely accessible.
-Decline in printed newspaper sales & viewing TV news.
-Increase in web traffic so much of grad media now has websites so there’s more convergence between media types.
The effects of new media on traditional media
-Decline in newspapers and TV watching.
-Growth in ‘live’ coverage, often from mobile phones, used in news broadcasts.
-Use of new media content in traditional media (e.g., journalists using social networking sites, bloggers, citizen journalists as sources).
-Online criticisms of mainstream news output.
-Development of online newsrooms in traditional media.
-Interaction with traditional media articles through email, social networks, and journalist blogs.
Bivens: Effects of new media on old (2008): Shifts in traditional news cycles
-New media resulted in growth of citizen journalism so the trad media no longer control the flow of info.
-Instead they need to respond to news discovered by citizen journalism.
-Increased flow of need so journalists have less time to process the news.
Bivens: Effects of new media on old (2008): Heightened accountability
-Citizen journalism has made trad media more accountable to the public as their reports are scrutinised by public & criticised online.
-The news organisations aim to be more accountable to their audiences & use their websites to offer more interactivity & transparency.
Bivens: Effects of new media on old (2008): Evolving news values
-News values may be changing as trad media are incorporating ‘non-professional’ material - such as mobile phones & YT videos of citizen reports.
-The news value of immediacy seen as important with the aim to gain live footage being vital (ie. war footage).
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2015)
-As news media’s increasingly used to access the news, trad media loses out on money, so new media platforms, such as FB, Google have increasing concentration of power & control over news agendas.
-Marxists would say that this promotes a dominant ideology to sway political opinions & promote capitalist ideals.
-Pluralists believe there’s no homogenous view & more audiences can have a code and be active participants and this helps make profit.
The reduced power of ownership - McNair (2006)
-New media has weakened the elite’s control over news agendas.
-Traditional top-down control by media owners and editors has been replaced by cultural chaos (disruption, openness, and diversity).
-Citizen journalists contribute through blogging, tweeting, and sharing videos (e.g., on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter).
The reduced power of ownership: Agenda setting (Philo 2012)
-Media owners still have some power in influencing what is covered in traditional news.
-However, citizen journalism can influence traditional news, making some issues newsworthy.
-This has given more power to ordinary people but media owners still dominate the agenda-setting process.
The reduced power of ownership: Bivens
-The blogosphere plays a role in shaping traditional news agendas.
-However, elite groups adapt to these changes and retain control over major political issues.
-Despite the rise of citizen journalism, much of mainstream news is still shaped by dominant political and economic groups.
The rise of churnalism & infointainment
-Result of cost-cutting by media owners and competition in the global media market.
-Driven by 24/7 rolling news pressures and the rise of new media.
-Focus on entertainment over serious journalism to attract audiences and advertisers.
Changing relationships with media audiences
-Traditional media now more interactive and responsive due to new media.
-News now available on multiple devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops, smart TVs).
-Shift from fixed-time news (TV, print) to on-demand, bite-sized content.
-Reuters Institute (Newman & Levy 2014): Over one-third of 18-24-year-olds in developed countries primarily use smartphones for news.
-Launch of Apple News (2015) shows traditional media adapting to digital consumption trends.
-Traditional media increasingly using infotainment, websites & apps to remain relevant.
Curran & Seaton (2010) - 2 views of new media
- Cultural optimist/Neophiliac view: Optimistic about spread & influence of new media tech & see it as offering more choice & increases interactivity benefitting democracy & they embrace& adapt to new tech and are avid users of new media.
- Cultural pessimist view: Negative view & the new media are not really new. Interactivity is an illusion because ownership is still overwhelming & concentrated in hands of the powerful. Leads to decline in quality of popular culture.
What do Neophiliacs argue the new media creates?
-More informed consumers - we have access to more info online.
-Wider choices and more options.
-More user participation & social interaction - we all get involved whether that be posting something on social media, interacting with others, writing reviews, voicing our political opinion on a blog etc.
-Increased social diversity.
-Global village - connected globally, share similar cultures & have a greater understanding of others.
New media & greater democracy: New media & empowerment
-Provides ordinary people with more power to report, criticize, and challenge authority.
-McNair (2006): “Information, like knowledge, is power” – anyone with internet access can create content.
-Social media platforms like Twitter, Blogger, YouTube, and citizen journalism sites enable public participation in news production.
New media & greater democracy: Social movements & activism
-New media enables global organization of protests & campaigns (e.g. Occupy, Avaaz, Wikileaks).
-Example: Sheffield United withdrew Ched Evans’ training offer due to public backlash via social media.
-Cyberattacks (“Denial of Service”) can disrupt corporate and government websites in protest.
New media & greater democracy: Influence on mainstream media
-Citizen journalism challenges traditional media and forces accountability.
-Example: Mobile footage from London protests (2009) proved police brutality in Ian Tomlinson’s death, contradicting official reports.
-McNair: “Neither editors nor proprietors call the shots on content anymore.”
New media & greater democracy: New media & political change
-Social networking has played a key role in mobilising protests & revolutions.
-People can fact-check info £ voice radical political opinions to challenge IMU and mainstream ideologies.
-Arab Spring (2011): Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube spread footage of repression, influencing global opinion.
-Extinction rebellion.
Neophiliacs & New media: Easier access to more info & advice
-Free & instant access to knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia, YouTube lectures, blogs).
-24-hour news coverage with real-time updates.
-Enables self-education (universities posting free learning materials).
-Confidential support available for mental health, abuse, and addiction.
Neophiliacs & New media: Greater individual freedom & choice
-Social media allows people to experiment with identities and express themselves anonymously.
-Online platforms provide a voice for marginalised groups (e.g. LGBT & disabled bloggers).
Neophiliacs & New media: New social networks & global connections
-Internet creates a ‘global village’ with more daily interactions than ever.
-Social media (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp) enables people to form global communities.
-Helps families & friends stay connected across the world.
Neophiliacs & New media: The growth of E-commerce
-Online shopping makes goods & services more accessible & affordable (e.g. Amazon).
-Comparison sites allow easy price comparison & switching for better deals.
-New media enables small businesses to grow & sell online.
Criticisms of Neophiliac view
-Illusion of Choice – Neo-Marxists argue that new media is still controlled by conglomerates owned by the bourgeoisie, reinforcing the status quo and excluding anti-capitalist ideas.
-Democracy Not Revitalised – Bagdikian & Chomsky claim new media leads to infotainment & churnalism, making individuals less politically informed & active.
-Questionable Info Quality – Cultural pessimists argue much of new media content is dumbed down, infotainment, or churnalism, reducing its validity & depth.
-Critique of the ‘Global Village’ – Media imperialists argue that globalisation is actually Western, especially American, ideological dominance, ignoring global digital divides.
-Social Concerns – Critics highlight issues such as online grooming, reduced communication skills in young people, and increased isolation, challenging the idea that new media is entirely positive.
Cultural pessimist arguments: Domination by media conglomerates
-A few big tech companies (Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook) control social media, search engines, and web servers.
-They limit access to diverse information and de-platform users, restricting freedom of expression.
Cultural pessimist arguments: Reinforcing elite power
-Political parties use big data to manipulate public opinion (e.g., Trump’s campaign, Cambridge Analytica).
-New media strengthens elite control rather than promoting democracy.
Cultural pessimist arguments: Echo chambers
-Social media creates “echo chambers”, where users only engage with views that reinforce their own.
-Reduces exposure to opposing views, potentially leading to radicalisation, misinformation, and online harassment.
Cultural pessimist arguments: Increasing consumption & commercialisation
-Internet aims to sell us something so we see lots of advertising.
-Companies like Amazon, use data we collect to find out our preferences so they can target ads at users effectively.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: Not so new media
-Cornford & Robins (1999) argue that new media is not truly new.
-Old tech (TV, landlines) remains essential for new media (broadband, gaming consoles).
-Interactivity is not new – people have always engaged with media (e.g., writing to newspapers, calling radio shows).
-The only significant difference is speed – real-time access to news, entertainment, and information.
-New media refines and extends traditional media rather than replacing it.
-Comparison to Hollywood remakes – same content, but with better effects and bigger marketing budgets.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: Cultural & media imperialism
-Facilitated the spread of Western cultural values, particularly from the U.S.
-Non-Western cultures are exposed to and influenced by Western, especially American, values through global media.
-This exposure to Western values can weaken or replace local cultural traditions and independence.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: A threat to democracy - Power of unelected commercial companies
-New media is dominated by a few large corporations, such as Microsoft.
-Over 75% of top websites are controlled by major media companies (Curran).
-Companies like Facebook, Apple, and Google, called ‘sovereigns of cyberspace’ (MacKinnon), control internet access and influence politics.
-FB used to spread political views.
-These corporations hold power without responsibility, as they aren’t held accountable (Curran & Seatton).
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: Undermining of human relationship & communities
-Increased use of electronic media leads to less face-to-face communication, reducing quality time with family and friends.
-As people spend more time online, they engage less with their communities, weakening social networks and connections.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: Increased surveillance
-Mobile phones enable tracking of users’ locations, and social control agencies can access calls and online activity.
-Ordinary people also use new media to monitor others, such as filming crimes.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: The lack of regulation
-Many argue that the internet requires state regulation due to easy access to harmful content like pornography, racism, and terrorist sites.
-An Ofcom survey (2006) found 1 in 6 children accessed troubling material, and 7 out of 10 parents were worried about their children encountering inappropriate content.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: A threat to democracy - Censorship & control
-Countries like China and Iran use censorship and surveillance to control social media and prevent access to certain content (MacKinnon 2012).
-Even without formal censorship, governments like the UK monitor online activities, as revealed by Snowden (2013) through the exposure of Project Tempora, which illegally tracked citizens’ communications.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: Problems with the validity of info
-The new media makes it difficult to verify the truth of reports, with videos often being doctored or fake.
- Much of what is presented as factual is actually disguised advertising, and disingenuous reports circulate frequently, with fact-checking becoming less common.
Cultural pessimist arguments made against the New media: Commercialism & limited consumer choice
-Cornford and Robins argue that while new technologies offer more consumer choice, they also have negative side effects, such as customer surveillance through tools like cookies.
-New media is focused on making money for companies, advertisers, and internet providers.
-CP (Creeber and Martin) argue that social media primarily serves as a platform for targeted advertising, not genuine social connection.
-The rise of reality TV, repeated content, and tabloid news has led to a decline in the quality of popular culture, according to CP.
:( Marxist sociologists are concerned about the commercialisation of new media, claiming it promotes materialism, consumerism, and false needs, furthering capitalist control.
Criticisms of Cultural pessimist arguments
-Focus on Negatives: Critics argue cultural pessimists overlook the positive aspects of new media, like access to information and global connectivity.
-User Choice: Individuals have the agency to resist commercial manipulation and use technology for self-expression or community-building.
-Cultural Diversity: New media supports cultural diversity by amplifying marginalized voices, not just leading to homogenization.
-Empowerment: New media can empower people, as seen in social movements like #MeToo and the Arab Spring.
-Economic Benefits: New media creates job opportunities and economic growth, often ignored by cultural pessimists.
