· In what way do you see the function of traditional mass-media and so-called personal media as being different?
I believe that the function of traditional mass-media nowadays is to influence the masses rather than to inform them. There was an interesting interview on the 7.30 report tonight (12/10/2010), Kerry O’Brien interviewing Bruce Guthrie, who will release his book Man Bites Murdoch tomorrow. Guthrie made an interesting remark about the development of newspapers since the early seventies. He said that in those days, the role of the editor was simply to hunt down great stories and make them available to the masses. In today’s times everybody seems to try and take influence on what is published and how it is presented. Shareholders, Politicians, Industry all want to control - especially what is said about them and their peers and how that affects the public view. He further stated that this makes the position of the editor extremely difficult, as he has to constantly avoid accidentally stepping on somebody’s foot. An extract of Man Bites Murdoch is available on The Age’s website.
I believe that there are parallels in other traditional mass-media apart from print, like Radio and TV. They all have a one-to-many approach in common trying to control the audience by controlling what is published.
So-called personal-media is a many-to-many scenario, providing opportunities for dialogue. Traditional mass-media only allows for a monologue from the media to the masses.
Visualising traditional mass-media versus so-called personal-media, there are to levels. Traditional mass-media is on the limited space of an upper level, in a hierarchical position. Traditional mass-media communicates vertically, top down, one way.. To the contrary, so-called personal-media actually comprises the lower level. Communication commences horizontally between individuals that make up the masses to the effect that news (information) spreads virally: Individuals forward information to multiple recipients who then again individually spread the information to multiple recipients.
· In what way do you see the form of traditional mass-media and so-called personal media as being different?
My experience is that traditional mass-media and so-called personal-media are starting to interact. While so-called personal-media will approach traditional media to further popularise their offers, traditional mass media has discovered the virtual world of so-called personal-media for their own purposes. The borders are blurring.
Traditional mass media had to rely on physical data media like paper (books, newspapers, magazines) and radio waves (TV and radio).
So-called personal-media almost entirely relies on the Web. What traditional mass media required in physical means of transport, the Web can combine in a virtual environment that is accessible 24/7 and branching out into all sorts of Internet enabled devices outside standard computers and laptops, such as mobile phones and Blackberries. Further, replicating of information can commence infinitely, while physical replication always comes at a cost. This doesn’t only make so-called personal-media more flexible, it also comes at significantly lower costs.
· In what way do you see the reliability of traditional mass-media and so-called personal media as being different?
Looking at this question I also wonder how important reliability is. I would say it depends on how valuable the information is and how it impacts on the receiver. Women’s Weekly are traditional mass-media, as are Channel 9 News updates, Kyle Sandilands’ radio show, as well as newspapers like The Australian or Herald Sun. A significant part of what is sold as news is actually trivia. Is it important that the information is reliable when celebrity A has been divorced from celebrity B, or that C was seen drunk and embarrassed D with it or that E has put on some weight?
In my opinion reliability is important when the information provided affects the consumer directly. I will further discuss the reliability issue from this point of view.
As stated above, traditional mass-media and so-called personal-media are starting to interact. Both cite each other (e.g. newspapers, TV and radio report on blogs, vodcasts etc. and vice versa) and traditional mass-media also starts to use the means of so-called personal-media communication. A good example is ABC TV which uses the means of Internet communication to promote their programs online. The political program Q&A offers viewers (the masses in front of their TV) to ask questions to the panel through vodcasts and to comment on the show via Twitter. Randomly tweets are faded in during the program.
To be accepted as a reliable source of information I believe that traditional media will have to move away from the hierarchical communication position as outlined in the response to question 1 and get on the same level with the masses. I think that ABC is a great role model on how to transition from vertical one way communication and taking the risk of engaging in many-to-many horizontal communication, arriving on the same level with the audience.
I do tend to believe that so-called personal-media is more reliable than mass media, the reason being that you have a personal relation with your audience, based on two-way communication. Interacting in two-way communication is more risky than simply talking at the masses.
All individuals in a so-called personal-media CME interact. Statements can be questioned or even dismissed directly and in person. But they can also spark new discussion. So-called personal-media relations demand accountability in the aim to gain trust in what you communicate. In traditional mass-media trust was out of the question as there were no alternatives than what traditional mass-media would actually deliver to the masses. Everybody had the same information and if the information was questioned it again happened through traditional mass-media.
Further response to Sky's question:
Hello Sky,
It’s interesting that you ask this. I totally agree that we should be abandoning some of our mistrust of sources that aren't affiliated with large organisations, and instead put more value on sources that are aware of local issues that affect us directly.
From a traditional perspective, I think it is a habit to believe that information provided by large organizations is generally of better quality than less common sources. Consuming information was a passive experience. How could consumers find out if they were told the truth? It was almost impossible, as distribution was in the hands of the traditional media. There was no alternative. As a result, the consumer was also easy to manipulate. There is a great example from 1977 when an investigative journalist (Wallraff, 1997) worked undercover for three and a half months as an editor at Germany’s biggest newspaper (Bild ). Soon after his experience, he published a book, which became an instant bestseller, followed by a number of charges and counter charges between Bild and Wallraff, as Wallraff had badly damaged the reputation of the newspaper.
I think that so-called personal media consists partly of people like Guenther Wallraff. Today they still engage in investigative journalism, but instead of working undercover, the Internet provides the technology to simply interact with those who are aware of local issues and can either confirm information as accurate or reject it as incorrect. That is why I believe that consumers should put more value on these sources. I’m not saying that I categorically reject anything that is provided by large organizations. What I think is important is that consumers should not always accept simple answers to complex questions and use the means that are available to do their own research and use some local sources to confirm what they’ve been told – especially when it affects them directly.
References
Wallraff, G. (1977). Der Aufmacher: Der Mann, der bei Bild Hans Esser war. Cologne, Germany, Kiepenheuer & Witsch GmbH & Co KG
No comments:
Post a Comment