New Media allows more people to be involved in cultural production as it is more accessible to everyone and views can be expressed online without being vetted and changed, unlike newspapers in which only certain things are allowed to be written and by certain people.
The new voices of the public are saying, simply, exactly what they think or want to. Like said stories/views in newspapers are proof read for sometimes names to protect identity and abusive, crude language. The same being for the radio even though nothing is 'proofed' before aired there are unspoken rules whereby you can not swear on the radio and appear to be offensive, for example Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross were punished for making prank calls and abusing someone from the public. Online in new media people can say what they think and can use real names but is the freedom to express a good thing?
From looking at blogs/forums and personal experience i find that in the 'click-to-send' environment people often express parts of their private lives which they would not face to face. Sometimes they share secrets or personal details of even their sex lives with strangers. This appears to me a very strange thing to do, however it allows discussion of personal things perhaps without the embarrassment of face to face interaction. I think the world of new media blogs and forums are very complex and the way in which people act in them is very interesting and can maybe show a lot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
but you could argue that the replies people put on stories on the newspapers websites are no different to when people write into the editors, and they dont reach the same amount of people. Even though the internet does allow alot more freedom of speech, the large organisations who have websites which are heavily promoted like BBC and the newspapers ones etc reach a larger audience, than someones personal blog. So people can say what they want, but it may not be reached by as many people.
ReplyDelete