The announcement that Newsweek, the magazine, will cease publication at
the end of the year, and will henceforth be available only in digital form, is
seen by media observers as marking the end of an era. It has revived talk about
the impending death of the print media.
But I suspect the issue goes much
deeper. I think we are looking at the end of the mass media, as we know them,
and their reinvention as communication forms of the Internet.
If Newsweek goes, can Time, its
older rival, be so far behind? For much of the 21st century, these two weekly
American news magazines summed up and interpreted world events with an air of
authority that no other publication had been able to match. Their combined
perspective is the closest equivalent one can find to the American liberal
world view. The first real challenge to their supremacy came from another
medium—television.
Global networks like CNN and BBC,
empowered by advances in satellite communications, offered not only the news in
real time, but also instantaneous analyses of breaking stories. But, television
could not replace the thoughtful, well-written, and comprehensive articles by
which these two magazines dominated global public opinion.
Everything, however, changed with
the Internet. The complex system of communications that this network of
computers hosts—the Web—has permanently altered the terrain of the mass media.
Countless new magazines containing great writing and wonderful photography have
come out in digital form. They are typically offered free, wholly or partly, or
they sometimes charge a small fee for the privilege of accessing the content of
an entire issue.
In addition, a netizen may turn
to any of the free apps (e.g., Flip, Pulse, and Zite) designed for tablets and
smart phones to obtain access to reading fare culled from various online
sources. Using these, one can access a mind-boggling selection of articles
chosen according to one’s own indicated personal interests.
Since the selection changes every
day, one may choose to save an article for later reading. This completely
restructures the reading habits that were shaped by the long-standing
preeminence of the print media.
Much easier and cheaper to
assemble, online magazines rely mostly on advertising to subsist.
A reader has the option to pay if
he wants a reading experience free from advertisements. In any event, he will
find the digital version to be a lot cheaper than the printed version. I myself
prefer to hold the “real” book or magazine in my hands instead of reading a
digital copy on a Kindle or an iPad screen.
But it is a fetish I don’t see in
my granddaughter, who finds reading from her iPad more pleasant and enormously
more appropriate to her multitasking inclinations.
But, apart from all this, what
online publications have achieved is to put an end to the one-way flow of
opinion and ideas that has been the hallmark of the traditional mass media.
Today, almost all online magazines and news websites encourage their readers to
post comments and engage the author and other readers in a sustained discussion
of the issues. Printed magazines and newspapers, in contrast, offer very
limited space for reader feedback. The editor’s absolute discretion over what
gets printed serves as a deterrent to extended discussions.
Perhaps, more significantly, the
Internet has given every member of the public a chance to publish or broadcast
his/her own ideas. It is as if, with every purchase of a tablet or smart phone,
a citizen also receives as a gift a television network and a printing press
with global reach. This power—which is rooted in the technology of mass
dissemination—used to belong exclusively to media moguls. The personal computer
and the Internet democratised that power, thus ending the control of the mass
media as a source of social and political power.
Out of the concerted efforts of
online communities, the Internet has evolved its own rules in order to deal
with its ever growing complexity.
But the system remains vulnerable
to attack. And those who recognise its value and fragility as a democratised
resource cannot but see every attempt to centrally regulate cyberspace as a
threat to the Internet’s viability as a medium of mass communication. This may
explain why many Filipinos vehemently reacted to innocent-looking provisions of
the recently passed cybercrime law.
The law proceeds from premises
appropriate to the traditional mass media. Niklas Luhmann characterised such
media thus: “Interaction [between sender and receivers] is ruled out by the
interposition of technology, and this has far-reaching consequences which
define for us the concept of mass media.”
In the absence of the possibility
of a quick reply, it made sense, for example, that victims of defamatory
messages in the press or on TV would seek redress through the courts. But,
given that an Internet post can now almost instantaneously be countered by any
recipient of the communication, including the victim, the idea of irreparable
injury arising from publication is surely mitigated.
More significantly, existing
libel laws take off from conventional notions of the right to privacy. Public
figures give up a large chunk of this right in exchange for media exposure.
But, in this respect, Facebook’s
nearly a billion account holders would not be so different. The mass
dissemination of a billion personal profiles through the new media does make
privacy somewhat passé. A new medium is indeed upon us, and, as with early
forms of mass media, its long-term social value ultimately rests upon
responsible and restrained use by its owners.
Randy David
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. Since we are currently changing the platform of www.yourvietnamexpert.com, you may contact us at: sbc.pte@gmail.com, provisionally. Many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment