Essay Question - the development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production.

The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.

The argument about whether or not the development of new/digital media allows the audience more power in terms of consumption and production has been argued throughout the inventions of new/digital media. As the years go by the argument has become more significant to critics as new/digital media is crucial in our daily life. The depth of this argument has widened as the discussion about this argument has increased. Marxists view capitalist society as being one of class domination; the media are seen to promote hegemonic ideology. On the other hand, Pluralists would argue that they see society as a consisting of competing groups and interests. The battle between Marxists and Pluralists are effective to this argument to a great extent as they are both strong believers of their ideologies, however this does not put a boundary to our own believes. In fact both sides and my own opinion will be argued throughout this essay.

Firstly, In regards to the Utopian Vs Dystopian perspective, there has been an argument that the Utopian- Del Sola poole states that the new media will facilitate a positive media world where there is going to be a much wider range of texts produced that meets the needs and desires the audience. This is effective as it is true to an extent. An example of this would be Google or Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia can be edited, in general it provides the audiences with information they’re searching for. This makes the audience more powerful in terms of consumption and production as Google and Wikipedia allows them to get the information they’re searching for as well as edit information on Wikipedia if they disagree on anything being said.

More than that, another example which the Pluralists would argue is the fact that people are now able to interact with each other through social networking sites. For example, Facebook and twitter – which are, at the moment the most popular sites out there. This gives the audience the feeling of power as they are once again the producers and consumers of the media. An incident which elevates this point is the Arab Spring and protests which were held in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. This is effective as the word spread around through social networking sites by people uploading videos of the government’s faults, commenting and expressing their opinions and believes, sharing daily corruptions that occur in North Africa (Libya, Egypt and Tunisia) and even creating pages. An example of these pages on Facebook are called ‘ thaleb’ which is aimed at the audiences that are pro Ghadaffi, another Facebook page which would be against Ghadaffi is ‘ almotasalakeen’ which is aimed at people against Ghadaffi and the old regime, these pages are effective as it helped spread the idea of starting a revolution which led to what these countries are going through today. The reality is that these social networking sites are an information-distribution network, not that different from the telephone or email or text messaging, except that it is real-time and massively distributed — in the sense that a message posted by a Tunisian blogger can be re-published thousands of times and transmitted halfway around the world in the blink of an eye. A theorist who backs up this point would be Katz and Blumler who has invented the ‘Uses and gratification’ theory who argue that the audience find ways of social interaction, entertainment and information where they require it. This concludes that audiences have more power by new media such as social networking sites as it allows them to make up their own decision for why they are using the networking sites and makes them apart of being the consumers as well as the producers.

 Furthermore, User-generated content, is the term used to describe any form of content such as video, blogs, discussion form posts, digital images, audio files, and other forms of media that was created by consumers or end-users of an online system or service and is publically available to others consumers and end-users. The theory ‘users generated content’ plays a major role in the view that audiences feel as if they have more power as a result in the development of technology. There has been a growth in mobile phones during the past years, which gives the audience the ability to take pictures and record. By these apps being invented, it allows the audience to feel as if they have more power than traditional media itself. It also allows the audience to attain the term ‘citizen journalists’ which means they can record major events and publish it on social networking sites. A good example would be the 2005 London Bombing, when an individual recorded what he saw had happened and published it on YouTube. This is effective as the free hand video that was published got more views than the original video published by the traditional media (News). According to my research the researches Jean Burgess and Joshua Green (2009) had researched into YouTube and found that 42% of the sample they analysed comprised of extracts from ‘traditional media’; and most of those had been uploaded by users. Therefore the clips were uploaded by fans rather than the traditional media companies them-selves. They said ‘It is likely that in the last two years this percentage will have increased, as YouTube has become a medium of ‘catch up’ distribution in the UK, for Channels 4 and 5’. This elevates the fact that YouTube even allows users to create their own channels, this is effective as it makes the audience feel as if they have power and makes them the consumers and producers of new/digital media.

Moreover, another technology which makes the audiences feel power due to new/digital media is TV and programmes such as Sky+, Sky sports etc. Sky is significant as it allows the reader to record their favourite documentary, film etc. while watching something completely different at the same time and then going back to it and can rewind or forward which gives them the ultimate power as they feel as if they have control of what they are doing to the TV. The Uses and gratification theory is argued that the audience watch for surveillance, inform or entertainment. This is an example of new/digital media and the theory backs up this point as it reflects the fact that the audience feel more power as they have the ultimate control on the reason why they are watching TV and have the control over when it is suitable for them to watch the show they might have missed.

Therefore, Web 2.0 as defined by Tim O’Reilly in 2005 is essentially a medium that allows audiences to become producers of media texts. This requires web-based software, such as blogs, which audiences can use to produce, and share, their own work. It is argued that Web 2.0, often referred to as ‘we media’, democratises the media, as anyone with a web connection can create and publish texts which is known as ‘user-generated content’; thus we no longer have to rely upon professional organisations or traditional ‘old’ media to act as the gatekeepers, for example newspapers, letter pages or radio. Today audience can easily produce texts themselves, giving them power in terms of consumption and production.

However, Marxists would argue against this statement and believe that in fact the development of new/digital media does not allow the audience more power in terms of consumption and production. A theorist that supports this argument is Carr who argued in 2011 that new/digital media has led to ‘dumbing down’ and ‘the cult of the amateur’ because anyone, regardless of who they are can create texts which doesn’t really make people special in actual fact it just shows everyone is capable of doing a certain amount of change to the new/digital media which puts a boundary to the audiences ability to change or create texts etc. Another critic who would support this view is Andrew Keen, who believes that internet is killing our culture he argues that, ‘web pages and blogs are like millions of monkeys typing nonsense’. Marxist view capitalist society as being one of class domination; which means that the media has full control over the mass and injects the audience with information that they want the audience to know, for example; the news, in some cases the news does not reveal everything but often reveal the parts that they want the audience to know and hear. Another example would be elections (anywhere around the world) when a party is determined to win the elections they do not reveal the full truth as it may change the mass’s opinion, therefore they only allow the audience to know certain information which they’re sure will benefit them. This is called the hypodermic syringe.

 Another view that the Marxist would argue is privacy and censorship. In many countries the government controls the internet and what the audience can access, this puts a boundary on the audiences ability to access whatever they like on the internet as it means even if they find a way to do so they may get caught by the government. This elevates the fact that the audience does not have any power. A theory of this approach would be the ‘hegemonic control’ this means that the government has full control on what the audience can access. Countries that portray this is ‘Mass media are seen as a way of entertaining the workers while drip feeding them ideologies and beliefs’. This is effective as it elevates the fact that the media are seen to promote hegemonic ideology and ensure the dominance of certain classes; the ultimate control is increasingly concentrated in wealthy corporations and media conglomerates. Media conglomerates is when a media group or media institution is a company that owns large numbers of companies in various mass media such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet. This makes the audience not have power as much as they want as there is a dominant organization which controls the audience.

A final reason which Marxist believes that does not give the audience power due to new/digital media is censorship. While other may disagree and argue that in some countries censorship is decreasing, and those in control e.g. the bourgeoisie, who has the ‘hegemonic control’ no longer have absolute power how they used too. Another critic which supports this ideology would be the Pareto’s law who argues that censorship is decreasing. However Marxists would argue that in actual fact in many countries such as Libya and China the government controls the media and controls what the audience can access, post, watch and comment. This illustrates the argument that in actual fact audience have no power due to censorship around the world. Marxists argue that the Mass media is a tool, therefore the Mass media is ruled by the ruling class and they have the ultimate power to what the audiences are capable of on the internet. This links back to the theory ‘hegemonic control’, while some people would argue and say that the ‘hegemonic control’ is decreasing others would say it is increasing and this is due to the fact that now the government knows that many people use new/digital media or social networking sites which cause caous as individuals post their beliefs and opinions which could cause a revolution, therefore as more governments are aware of this, more of the ruling class will try to control their audiences use of certain websites. This shows that there is the dominant ideology which is the ruling class which causes the audience to not feel powerful.

In my opinion, I believe that there is a balanced argument for this statement. There are advantages and disadvantages for new/digital media and audiences are empowered by this and feel power to a great extent. However, even though there is still censorship around the world and hegemonic control, audiences are still allowed to share their views and interact with people around the world making them feel power to a great extent.