KCB206

[n8794855]

CMC Versus Traditional Communication Pathways

When sifting through the widespread debates and information regarding contemporary communication practices utilised through new media technologies, one question becomes abundantly clear as being in dire need of answering; do individuals, contemporaneous technology and the contexts within which they are engaged impose enhancement or impoverishment upon the communication process?

  To properly answer this question, and gain a better understanding of the constantly and rapidly evolving landscape on new age information technology communication, one must delve into and gain understanding of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). CMC, essentially the antithesis of ‘face to face’ communication, relies upon a whole different set of codes, conventions and practices when compared to other more conventional and traditional methods of communication. There is general agreement in the literature (Baym, 2010; Crystal, 2006) that CMC is hindered by a lack of key components of traditional face-to-face communication such as; gestures, body language, facial expressions and tone. Therefore, for CMC to be considered an enhancement on the communication process then this communicatory channel must have suitable substitutes for conveying the various meanings that body language and gestures for example do. This is something that new information technology has accomplished.

  This conclusion then poses a newer question. From a traditionalist perspective, it is clear that when comparing and contrasting CMC with face-to-face communication that, CMC lacks some many of the qualities traditional communication offers. Therefore, one must ask is it fair and reasonable to compare the two communication methods?  Is CMC closer to written speech than spoken speech? The literature generally adopts this view (Crystal, 2006) however; it lacks the structure and formality of traditional written speech. Again one must ask; does this necessarily hinder the communication process? Let’s explore this further.

  The answer is no. CMC offers communicators the opportunity for instantaneous, global pathways of communication unlike written or face-to-face traditional communications methods. This offers a whole new platform and context for communication, for example facilitating the individual conversing with the organisation in a public space that can be held to the scrutiny of a public forum (Baron, 2008). This now leads one to the conclusion that CMC is a separate spectrum of communication that cannot be fairly, reasonably or conclusively compared and then ranked against traditional forms of communication.

  To summarise, CMC has reared its head in contemporary society, changing the ways in which individuals and groups communicate. Whilst this communication type may lack the rhythm and synchronisation of traditional methods, CMC is breaking down barriers and changing the landscape of the modern world. Essentially, CMC is too unique to be able to be compared to traditional methods as its validity and effectiveness can only be grasped in each specific context. Therefore, one must conclude that CMC is not a worse or better way of communicating but rather a different way, for different purposes with different conventions attached.

  References

  Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press.

  Crystal, David, (2006). Chapter 2 : The Medium of Netspeak. In Crystal, David, Language and the internet, (pp.26 - 65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Michael McConnachie

[n8794855]

New Media and the Entertainment Industry: Participatory Collaboration or Exploitation?

New technologies and the globalised nature of communication and information are shifting paradigms and altering the ways in which we, as a public, consume entertainment. People are demanding their content instantaneously and in a personalised format (Bruns, 2012). This has reconstructed the manner in which producers of content make entertainment. This process relies heavily upon interaction between both consumer and producer in a manner, which fosters both co-production and participation. This is a clear convergence of both producer and consumer roles within entertainment media and another example of the democratisation of the development process for new entertainment media content.

  There is disagreement in the literature (Shefrin, 2004) however, with many believing this new and evolving model for entertainment content construction relies heavily upon exploitation of masses and commodification, reinforcing the economic hierarchies of the industry.

  “The internet is a venue that epitomizes the political struggle between utopian visions of participatory democracy and prevailing hierarchies of economic power” (Shefrin, 2004; 277).

  Whichever view one takes it is abundantly clear however, that new media are remoulding practices and processes within the professional domains of journalism, television, film and music. This is both in terms of production and consumption of new media content.

  There is a demand now for new media entertainment to provide multiple platform engagement opportunities for consumers. The consumer potentially owns a variety of devices (forms of new media) from which to be engaged with content. Producers are now releasing content across different platforms in varied forms. This offers an opportunity for producers to build links between platforms and engage audiences further in their content (Burgess, et al. 2009). This practice has given rise to the transmedia domain whereby producers create content that is intertwined into one story across a variety of different platforms. This has implications creatively whereby storylines can potentially progress in a non-linear fashion or even progress from one medium, or platform, to the next.

  Furthermore, shifts in new media entertainment have had to force producers of content to respect fan culture(s). This is due to the inclusive nature of production whereby consumers are involved in the process (Bourdieu, 1993; Quoted in Cattani et al. 2014).  The line however, separating collective cultural production and commercialisation is regularly crossed in the entertainment industry. The question that consumer contributors need to ask, when engaging in the collaborative creative process, is am I being exploited for the benefit of a commercial pursuit or am I contributing towards creative cultural content?

  To summarise, the contemporary platforms of new media technologies are blurring the lines between producers and consumers, enthusiasts and specialists and proletarians and professionals. Long term ramifications for these shifts essentially point towards a world whereby the flow of information and new media content are not dictated by a few but rather managed by many. This has many ethical implications that relinquish the ability for a propaganda-dominated media to exist.

  References:

  Bourdieu, 1993; Quoted in Cattani, G; Ferriani, S; Allison, P.D.; (2014). Insiders, Outsiders, and the Struggle for Consecration in Cultural Fields: A Core-Periphery Perspective. American Sociological Review 1-24; DOI: 10.1177/0003122414520960

  Bruns, Axel (2012). Journalists and Twitter : how Australian news organisations adapt to a new medium., Media International Australia Incorporating Culture & Policy 144 (144) pp.97-107. 

  Burgess, Jean and Green, Joshua, (2009). Chapter Two : YouTube and the Mainstream Media. In Burgess, Jean and Green, Joshua, Youtube : online video and participatory culture, (pp.15 - 37). Cambridge UK: Polity Press. 

  Shefrin, Elana (2004). Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom : Mapping new congruencies between the Internet and media entertainment culture., Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3) pp.261-281. 

[n8794855]

Blog Post #1 Technology, Connectedness and Shifting the Status Quo

Contemporary society’s usage of new technologies and exposure to new media and information is now connected seamlessly between the realms of home life, work and leisure (Deuze, M. 2011). This is heavily intertwined with the rise of globalisation and global communication brought about by new technologies and the contemporary social media landscape. This landscape allows for people to both distribute and absorb information between the individual and family, friends, colleagues and organisations. The wide variety of new technologies, which foster such two-way communication, also foster the capacity for the individual to have access to this information at all times of the day.  These shifting circumstances pose implications for contemporary life of the individual, organisations and society.

  When analysing the implications that change brings upon the individual; brought about by these shifting contemporary, technological and communicatory landscapes, it is clear that both privacy and consumer power are developing, with regards to the individual, organisations and society. Access to social media, and the globalised and comprehensive information and communication exchange, which it offers, requires a sacrifice of otherwise privately retained information (Gibson, P.L; Papacharissi, Z. 2011). This information is gathered and stored by social media bodies and used to the benefit of themselves financially and the benefit of organisations who are able to fine tune their marketing toward the consumer in a more effective and relevant manner. This essentially means that to engage in the contemporary global information exchange, consumers must offer up their personal information in exchange for being targeted more frequently by advertisers and organisations.

  Once however, the individual has engaged in new technologies and social media, the instantaneous and transparent world of communication becomes available to them. As a consumer, one now has the ability to engage with organisations across a transparent and public platform. This can mean several things. Firstly, that the consumer can complain about or refute decisions made by organisations. The impact of this can been seen continually around the world as the consumer at times effortlessly rallies public support from home or work at their convenience. Aside from increased consumer power, the rise in new technologies and global communication fosters a constructive platform for two-way communication between organisations and consumers that can assist in improved consumer products, tailored for the respective target audiences of organisations (Van Dijck, J. 2013). This essentially means that product creators now have the ability to gain first hand data of what the consumer specifically wants from their product(s).

  To summarise, contemporary society’s usage of new technologies and exposure to new media content and online information has altered the relationship between individuals and organisations predominantly for the individual, however, these changes do present organisations with an opportunity to provide better quality and relevant products to the consumer far more easily. Therefore, on a societal level the individual, despite seemingly loosing more rights through the sacrifice of private information, has been granted greater power over organisations throughout the world.