Oct 10
8
Silverstone (2005) describes mediation as the means by which communication alters the construction social and cultural environments. This could further be taken to mean that social and cultural spheres are created through mediation. Or that the means of mediation create social and cultural spheres. Spheres in the sense could mean a place. This is not to be taken the physical sense. A sphere is merely a place demarcated by the type of communication that happens there. In this sense there are generally two types of spheres. There are public spheres and private spheres. Public spheres are places where the public is informed about issues and constructs a certain view of reality. Ideally public spheres should be accessible by anyone. This has not been the case, however, through the course of human history. Cultural domination, unequal access, and limited resources have limited the voices allowed to enter the public sphere. This has changed with the advent of the Internet. There are still issues with access which is known as the “digital divide” but fortunately the gap is slowly closing. The power of a select few to construct the reality for the masses is eroding. Just 20 years ago the LGBT community largely had no voice outside of protests and a few newsletters. Now this community has access to one another and the populace.
The perceived democratization of information does not come without consequences. One should not think that just because more voices are allowed access that there is not some form of hegemonic control. The feeling that the populace has control over their information flow can be dangerous. The information they share is being used against them by marketers and politicians. Data mining allows for this vast amount of demographic and personal information to be used to manipulate the masses (Andrejevic, 2009). All is not lost, though. Awareness of these maneuvers should make citizens and scholars proactive. Efforts to curb the sale of our information should be enacted. These could come in the form of establishing info-friendly (borrowing from the eco-friendly terminology) non-profit search engines, social networking sites, etc. The second step would be to boycott, petition, or even sue those who use our information in ways that we don’t approve. The third step would be to fight for legislation to curb the amount of data mining. Net Neutrality is a related piece of legislation. It’s primary focus is on access and control, but it could be altered to include the data that is allowed to be gathered about users.
Use of the Internet for transmission also raises questions over how it affects the message. Mediatization theory argues that the message is altered by the medium in which it is delivered (Couldry, 2008). Mediation also plays into this area of inquiry because it deals with the degree that communication affects society (Silverstone, 2005). If one views digital storytelling from the viewpoint of mediatization a few things can be gleamed. Stories on the Internet are often shorter, non-linear, and intertextual (Couldry, 2008). The medium provides greater flexibility for the author. I do not believe that technological determinism is coming into play here. I merely believe that the technology allows the author to have more freedom.
Viewing digital storytelling from the mediation frame and there is even more to be learned. Digital storytelling allows for more voices to be heard and allows for collaborated writing and experience (Couldry, 2008). This is one of the positive aspects of new media. New media gives access where there was originally none. It is breaking down the hierarchical structure of information dissemination.
Breaking down hierarchies is one of the key concerns for critical and feminist scholars. As a public sphere the Internet should ideally be a place where discourse is allowed to flow regardless of a person’s place in society (Röhle, 2005). It should be a classless institution. Although Foucault would contend that power can have positive implications (Röhle, 2005). The idea that there are those who are entitled with the burden of vetting facts could be a positive. A place where journalists are relied upon once again to investigate and report facts and not engage in the tabloid gossip, commentary, and infotainment that is prevalent right now in traditional media.
A feminist view of media institutions is critical of the internal hierarchies. Grant, Meadows, and Storm (2009) argue that now is the perfect time to begin bringing feminist ideals into the media workplace. They argue that the best time to enact change is when change is already happening. A great deal of change is happening inside organizations as they respond to convergence. Thus, the time to do away with hierarchies and to institute a meritocracy inside media institutions is now.
References
Andrejevic, M. (2009). Critical media studies 2.0: An interactive upgrade. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 1(1), 35-50. doi: 10.1386/iscc.1.1.35/1
Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media & Society, 10(3), 373-391. doi: 10.1177/14614444808089414
Grant, A. E., Meadows, J. H., & Storm, E. J. (2009). A feminist perspective on convergence. In A. E. Grant & J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Understanding media convergence : the state of the field (pp. 151-163). New York: Oxford University Press.
Röhle, T. (2005). Power, reason, closure: Critical perspectives on new media theory. New Media & Society, 7(3), 403-422. doi: 10.1177/1461444805052283
Silverstone, R. (2005). The sociology of mediation and communication. In C. Calhoun, C. Rojek & B. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Sociology (pp. 188-207). London: Sage Publications.
Related posts:
