In your reading for homework, there is a slightly intense dialogue about "old media" and "new media." Using the readings we have done on technology and literacy (this means you need to go back a couple weeks for some of them), I want you to "meet the press" and create a case for old media, new media, or both. Your response should take whatever form (i.e. genre) you feel allows you to step up and meet the press. It should NOT simply be a response--you can take a side to speak from (the press or the public) and create a voice based on that side.
What I'm looking for is for you to create an INFORMED case speaking from the voice of either the press or the public. This means evidence, evidence, evidence, and I want you using the readings from class. Per normal you should be responding to your peers as well, and this should be about 500 words (those of you not hitting this targeted word amount--I do notice and you do not get full credit for your homework).
This post you will be commenting back to this, so you are NOT creating your own post.
**If you don't know what "meet the press" means...you didn't critically read the Beltway blog. =)
Due: Friday, February 18, 2011.
Alexis said...
ReplyDeletePublic opinion – I will be creating a case for old media and new media
I, Alexis Camarda, am speaking on the behalf of the public stating that old media and new media are linked as one. Old media is the news , more like the face to face telling of news. New media is the online world; blogging, etc. The question maybe be asked, is media big enough for both to coexist, and even overlap. I think so, rather I know so. According to Poniewozik who wrote, "The Belt Way Blog Battle", states, “Interest in political news is sky-high, and new and old media each need the other to supply material and drive attention.” There you have it, the old media needs to provide the material to the world and new media makes it accessible for all to read, even add opinions to what is going on. However, there is a question of roles, “What’s happening instead is a kind of melding of roles. Old and new media are still symbiotic, but it's getting hard to tell who's the rhino and who's the tickbird” (Poniewozik 1).
Now it could be argued that old media “bosses are slashing staffs, their advertisers are drifting away, and their prerogatives are being challenged by bloggers and YouTubers: a diffuse army of the uncredentialed, uninhibited and--most terrifyingly—unpaid” ( Poniewozik 1). I argue against this. I think this has happened in the past when the “scare” of new media came out, but the officials still get connected to the news first hand, this is how the new media is able to post about it.
Let’s take a look a remediation. Bolter and Grusin define remediation as” the representation of one medium in another remediation, and we will argue that remediation is a defining characteristic of the new digital media” (45). In simpler terms, it is taking information from one medium and transferring it to another keeping some of the original content. Also Bolter and Grusin state that, “in this last decade of the 20th century, we are in an unusual position to appreciate remediation, because of the rapid development of the new digital media and the nearly as rapid by response by traditional media (5)”. Therefore we are living in an age where we should “appreciate remediation” because it is leading to newer media and improved mediums. The traditional media is improving too, in an effort to keep up but the benefits come out of it. An example that relates to the new media vs. old media: take paintings and photos. When the camera came out, people didn’t stop painting because there were cameras to capture the moment. Applying to our problem, the old media is transferred either by remediation or repurposing. Knowledge is a linked cycle and new media is dependent on old media, as old media is dependent on new media for the new technology.
I believe that old media and new media are linked together; the new media has built itself on prior knowledge and still continues to need to do so. Who is credible though? “we'll also stop arbitrarily dividing "real" from "amateur" journalists and simply distinguish good reporting from bad, informed opinion from hot air, information from stenography” (Poniewozik 3). We ourselves are to determine what we trust when we read. New media and old media shall meet the press together, linked.
Speaking as a blogger, and as such an integral part of our public of new media, I’d like to take time to share the truth about the situation of old and new media. Because of our rapid proliferation of technology and resources, the two mediums are inevitably evolving and “melding” into one another to circulate news (Poniewozik). The old media has traditionally been a source of prime reporting for the public, and the new media a way for that information to spread like wildfire to everyone. Yet the lines are blurring; digital technology is putting power in the hands of the people to report news. What I mean by this is that in the public, we know that digital literacy is a growing phenomenon and we take full advantage of it. An authority on the subject, Faigley, explains that the skill to traverse technology from the internet to the phone is multiplying, and therefore making news easier to access and even create through blogs and online forums. Therefore, lines are being blurred between the old and new.
ReplyDeleteLikewise blurring the view is the fact that “the old media, under pressure to work fast, sharpen their voices and cut costs, are increasingly making news blog-style, through argument and controversy” (Poniewozik). Even if it is just a chance to retain mass population interest, the two are joining together, whether we like it or not.
I’d like to respond to Alexis’s claim that photos are not replacing paintings, and her point of view that just because we have new media, does not mean it will necessarily stomp out the old media. As another authority on representing our public, I think she made a very persuasive case in connecting that analogy. I agree and think that sometimes, in an effort to remediate and repurpose information, we even use photos and paintings together. Both take from each other to repurpose information and produce news today. It’s just the world we are living in.
There cannot be a debate about which medium, new or old, is more effective, rather there is a debate about how both are effective together. The coming together of mediums is not simply the “original division” in which “old media broke news and blogs dispensed opinions” (Poniewozik). We need the credentials of old media to bring intelligent discourse and analysis to the new, but we also need open involvement in the public sphincter from social rallying bloggers and Youtubers to circulate and organize ideas from citizens themselves. An example of this success is in Obama’s online campaign. The old media provided the informative news on which the online campaign was based, and the online base made social rally in which many new voices were heard (Poniewozik). Either way this all goes back to Bitzer’s ideas on rhetorical situation-- when there is a need for information, a response must come in whichever form is not restricted by the constraints of the time and which responds appropriately to the audience, whether they are bloggers on an online forum or repoters meeting the press. Sometimes, a new medium is more appropriate, sometimes a old one is better in providing information; but there is a need for both in today’s world.
However, what the public believes to be the most deterring aspect of believing each is authority, which is a big problem in trying to ameliorate the growing bond between old and new media. The argument can be made about both that there are no credentials involved. To Poniewozik, new media is “a diffuse army of the uncredentialed, uninhibited and--most terrifyingly--unpaid” (Poniewozik). So why should we believe them? Well my question is, Why do you believe the old media? Because they are telling you from a point of authority. Basically, they could rally to you any information they pleased and you would have to believe it. That’s where the benefit of new media comes in. We have the opportunity to check our sources. Like a check and balance system that keeps our government in line, new media and new media feed off of each other to provide backup for one source and validate the credible claims of the other.
I am a blogger. Does my media therefore lose its argument because it is uncreditaled, when it is actually citing credible sources? Is my opinion then lost? It is up to the people to decide what is good and bad media—no matter if it is on television or on the internet. Therefore, I agree with Alexis’s citation of the quote, that we should all “stop arbitrarily dividing "real" from "amateur" journalists and simply distinguish good reporting from bad good or bad not old or new” because in the future it will just be “media” (Poniewozik). In a way, the fact that people are having to research to substantiate claims they have seen on the television or blogs is a more interactive way for people to engage with meeting the press. Debates are fueled with more authority if the public is actively seeking the truth in media.
ReplyDelete“Now, Samantha Drumb will be speaking on behalf of the line between new media and old media.”
ReplyDelete“Good morning everyone. A lot of issues have turned up on this subject. What is media? What is the difference between new and old media? Sometimes, they can be construed as overlapping and this is confusing. However, if we look closely, a thin line can be seen. All media has to do with technology of course, for example, media news for the most part, can be either seen on the television, or online. In Poniewozik’s “The Beltway Blog Battle”, it can be inferred that, as a basic separation, “old media” is things more on television like news broadcasts, sports games, etc. “New media” is mostly things found online. These are things like blogs, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Also, the old media, the news on television, is merely to inform the world of what is happening. The new media is more for everyday human beings to voice their opinion or make a comment on the matter that was discussed on the news, or just to talk about anything in general. Poniewozik states, “It's too simple to say that the new media are killing off the old media. Interest in political news is sky-high, and new and old media each need the other to supply material and drive attention. What's happening instead is a kind of melding of roles.” (Poniewozik 1) I am in exact agreement with this statement. It is impossible for new media to be “killing off” old media. New media needs old media to even exist for the most part. Since the purposes of both new and old media differ somewhat, they are both necessary to coexist. As discussed previously, old media is basically the television version to inform the world of current happenings and events. New media is basically the internet form, where people discuss what they have seen and heard from sources from the old media. If new media was “killing off” old media, there wouldn’t be near as much opportunity for the world to be informed of current events. However, this issue is not this black and white. Old media is not just the news and new media is not just blogs. They overlap each other. Many news articles and broadcasts can be found online. Even live webcasts can be found online. However, that brings up this question: just because these forms of media are online, does that necessarily mean that they are new media? Or are they in fact old media presented in a more technologically advanced way? I would have to go with the second way. The difference between new and old media isn’t how they are produced; it is just easy to group them that way because they are commonly produced in the same way. (That is new on the computer and old on the television.) But the point of new media is to give people the opportunity to blog and voice their opinion. The line between the two is extremely thin.”
I wrote this blog after reading Poniewozik’s piece and before looking at my peers comments. I am in agreement with Alexis a lot on this matter. I like how she relates new media and old media to remediation. She makes it easier to understand the issue at hand, and relates it to something we have been talking a lot about lately. I think in a way, new media is a remediation of old media since the purposes of both are similar but new media is presented in a separate and different medium and is more technologically advanced. I also like when Kayla talks about the possible truth of what media presents. I did not even think about this issue. The media could in fact all ally together and lie to us, and we would believe them because they are our only connection to the world away from our boundaries.
The question of which media (old or new) provokes more truth and power is a question that remains a heatedly debated topic across America today. There have been many opinions on that matter; many which in fact argue both sides of this continual question.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of old media is the written word. Back in the day to get a point across, whatever it may have been, was written on a piece of paper and was considered documented facts and information.
Today, things are a little bit different. New media brings technology into the picture creating an immense amount of different ways to present information on political issues, society as a whole, and other numerous situations going on in the present world. I believe that composition is the main key into even getting an audience to be interested in the topic being presented. Richard Fulkerson has a theory on what declares good composition. His theory of ‘what constitutes good writing’ (414) believes that attention in textbooks creates this opportunity to teach writing, however states that it “does not constitute agreement of any sort” about what either the term or topic might mean.
James Porter has a bit of a different view on this matter. “Audience is especially problematic when we assume that it has a fixed meaning or if we ourselves fix the meaning (6). With this argument of the two opposing views, Porter brings up a bit more of a valid point. The composer him/herself is given the ability to present two different views, but the audience is who develops what they feel on the subject and what it means in their eyes. Old media creates power through language, but only through language on a piece of paper to say the least. With new media, we are enforced to engage beyond the writing. The Beltway-Blog Battle is an article on comparing both the new and old media. “It’s too simple to say that the new media are killing the old media,” says James Poniewozik.
I’d have to agree with this statement completely. The argument is simple if you really think about it. How many people do you hear a day say, “So I was reading the newspaper and there was this section about Lady GaGa and her new perfume coming out, you have to read it!” I believe this to be rare. You normally will hear something more along the lines of, “So I was reading online, and on Perez Hilton’s blog there was a specific section about Lady GaGa’s new perfume coming out!” The teaching of writing in media has been undergoing shifts regularly.
In Maxine Hairstons article The Winds of Change, he states that what our society is undergoing today is “a paradigm shift” in the teaching of writing. Writing can be done in many ways other than just on paper with pen and pencil. We have internet, television, and even more types of technology to create the opportunity to become more educated in the world of writing and composition.
As Poniewozik declares in the Belt-Way Blog, “There is no shortage of ideas.” And if you think about it, there really isn’t. Literacy of the 21st century unfortunately wipes out the fabulous idea of old media. It’s just simply the truth; new media is what is making this world go round.
I am meeting the press on behalf of the press. The media is constantly growing. We have all kinds of mediums through which communication is being delivered. Whether it’s through a blog or a newspaper, it is all media. There seems to be a big issue between old media and new media. It’s getting harder for newspapers and magazines to get the word out about certain issues because people aren’t reading them. It’s so much easier to type in a few keywords to search for what you are looking for. I think, as press, we need to follow up with what people are doing. We can’t make people read the newspaper, but we can think of ways to sway them towards our content. Many newspapers have gotten connected with the internet and have blogs about their news content. Here people can chat about the issues. They are still receiving news, but in different ways. And perhaps if they see these blogs, they will want to read the actual article in the newspaper. It is all about finding the ways to connect to people.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Poniewozik in the Beltway-Blog when he says, “It's too simple to say that the new media are killing off the old media.” I think that they feed off of each other more so than compete. I think Sam is right when she says, “They overlap each other. Many news articles and broadcasts can be found online.” Although, the new media is rising with every new technology created, it still needs the old media to develop from. It’s like Bolter and Grusin’s, “Remediation is a mediation of remediation”. You can’t remediate something without having another medium to develop from. And I think, as I stated in the last paragraph, that they can can come together and help each other out.
I think as press, we have to find the best ways to get our information out. We can’t be picky about which medium we use because ultimately, the most important thing is informing our readers. As the media grows, we need to be up to date in our media literacy or else our words will go unheard. On the internet, things become viral. They can be read in seconds, and sent out and posted to other web pages seconds later. Isn’t it our goal to be the first to press? To get our information out the fastest? As press, we need to use this to our advantage. Take for instance when Poniewozik talks about how quickly word got out about Hilary Clinton’s controversial remark about Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination. “It was made news not by the traveling press but by viewers watching the live webcast.” Case in point, new media is where it’s at.
Although I do think that old media still needs to be used in order for new media to work, the internet is the main source for news these days. And one day, it will be something else, and the press will have to mold into whatever people are using for communication. I know I never read the newspaper. I try and watch the news in the mornings when I get ready for class. But for the most part, my main source of news is my facebook newsfeed, which is horrible I know. But it is the reality of most young people. The press does not need to do away with old media. It’s just needs to embrace new media and use it to its advantage.
I am here today to speak on behalf of the public that is making its voice heard with this new generation of media. Many call them unreliable, and dealing more with misinformed ranting or opinion content, materials that help expand our public discourse beyond the "real" news outlets but don't provide much real merit. But the development of our society is always marked by our advances in technology, and this advancement of technology has always helped to further enable all of us, the public's, ability to better understand what is going on in our world.
ReplyDeleteAs Kathleen Yancey notes in her piece about the changing field of composition with new media, in the 19th century society experienced a huge increase in literacy due to new technologies that made books more affordable and created a growing middle class with more time and desire to read. And as people became more literate, they began developing centers of public knowledge and discourse in which they shared books and ideas.
The revolution we are experiencing in this age is the extension of that 19th century breakthrough. First technology allowed the spread of literacy and information across society, and now with the age of computers and the world wide web, the public has access not only to consume what information is given to them by media, but the ability to contribute to and help shape public discussions. As the article Battle of the Beltway by James Poniewozik notes, two of the biggest stories of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Barack Obama's comments about working class voters being "bitter" and Bill Clinton's rant calling a reporter a "scumbag", were broken by a volunteer for the Huffington Post's website. The volunteer obtained both quotes in non-traditional ways, and while it may be unfortunate that public figures must tread so ultra carefully when it comes to speaking in public, but still, this new voice of media provided us an insight into the campaign that the old channels could not have provided us. As Poniewozik points out, there is a growing perception that the major media sources are more dedicated to protecting sources than dispensing the most accurate news possible, and thus we have come to look at these new media as a forum for the public to expand its sphere of knowledge outside the rigid confines of old journalism.
The reason we cannot overlook the power of this new media voice is that it provides such a greater immediacy than traditional media. In the earliest days of news, events would happen, they would be investigated, and then people could read about it in the next edition of the newspaper. But now, when something happens in public, there are countless potential reporters with smart phones capable of taking photos and videos and uploading them almost instantly. Hypermediated web pages can be created on the fly now, and while distinguished and reputable news sources will always play a role in overseeing the news and providing a solid authority when people are in need of the most concrete and authoritative source, the new media has opened the floor for the public to get the news out almost instantly.
News has developed a world of by the people, for the people sources of information, and while there may be those simply blowing smoke on these new media, that does not cancel out the potential that these new media provide for the public to create a larger public sphere of discussion of the news and to ensure that our reality is not too tightly controlled by the most massive media corporations. A critical eye is always needed when it comes to consuming news, but new media are expanding the boundaries of news and truth, and because of this massive potential, they cannot be ignored.
Contrary to popular belief, traditional media is just as effective as new media. While it may seem that technology today has advanced our current situation for getting the message out to the public, we have to realize that old media is not dead. It is in fact very much alive. However, new media still has its benefits. Speaking on behalf of the press, I will attempt to explain this notion in a clearly defined way so as to clear up the confusion many citizens have.
ReplyDeleteOld media is an element that cannot be replaced. All too often the public feels that since new media has overtaken our economy today, that it eventually will become extinct. This is not so. Have you ever noticed what we use to get messages to people? No, it is not all on Facebook as some would believe. We actually do still use newspapers and flyers and believe it or not, books. We can’t simply rely on new media; we have to get the word out using all different types of media. According to James Poniewozik who wrote “The Beltway-Blog Battle”, “it's too simple to say that the new media are killing off the old media. Interest in political news is sky-high, and new and old media each need the other to supply material and drive attention” (1). Old media and new media have to work together, in sync with one another. They can’t be two separate entities. However, one medium may die out because it no longer has effectiveness anymore, but that is rare. Pertaining to the fact that you still have to have old media as well as new media would be the example of a house. You wouldn’t build a house without first lying down the foundation. The same holds true for old and new media. According to Bolter and Grusin, old media is the foundation for new media. Therefore, you have to have the old so you can build upon the new. But sometimes people such as senior citizens don’t want to build upon new ideas and ways of doing things and cling to what they know, love, and view as more credible, such as old, traditional media. However, this leads to another issue when the argument is raised: what will happen when only the younger generations are left growing up in the new media world?
An argument for new media is brought up when we have to think about the younger generation who need to get the message, yet who don’t seem as keen on using old media.
In Poniewozik’s article, he states, “in other ways, the boundary between new and old media has become porous. Hillary Clinton's controversial reference to Robert F. Kennedy's assassination came in an interview with a newspaper, but it was made news not by the traveling press but by viewers watching the live webcast (Poniewozik)”. He emphasizes the fact that new media, such as a live webcast, is faster, more efficient, and more popular. In this generation where people on busier than ever before, people want their news and they want it fast. That’s where we, as the press come in. We have to meet these demands and accommodate to all types of media fans. Just like we cannot have just new media without the old. We cannot have old media without the new. As press agent Sam puts it, old and new media are “necessary to coexist”.
We’re trying to keep up with new media just as much as everyone else is. Whenever we hear the latest hit or see the latest video that’s popular, we notice and we want to use that to our advantage to reach an audience that uses that medium for their news. Because younger people view new media as more reliable, which is not always the case I might add, we have to accommodate their needs just as much as for old media for the senior citizens.
Referring to the 2008 election Daniel Libit states, “we’ve got all these people to go to the computer at home and feel part of this guy’s agenda. It’s something we haven’t dealt with.” The people flocked on-line to read the news about Obama and his campaign. The election was one where technology was a big factor in reaching people. Libit is absolutely right in saying we haven’t dealt with this before. Just because we haven’t dealt with it before doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong, it simply means it’s different and will take some time getting used to.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with press agent Amanda when she mentions we need to
“find the best ways to get our information out. We can’t be picky about which medium we use because ultimately, the most important thing is informing our readers.” On behalf of the press, I urge you, public, fans of both old and new media, to open your eyes and see there is no right or wrong way of doing things and we as the press are doing our best to accommodate you in the ways you receive information best. Thank you for your time and have a great day.
Currently in the field of media studies there is an ongoing debate between theorists about what form of media resonates more with the American people. There are many different theorists on each side of the fence, each with their own valid and resonating claims. I am here today to speak on behalf of both sides and try to explain both sides of these theories to try to come up with an ultimate conclusion.
ReplyDeleteTraditionally old media has been used to define written and spoken word, but with the current influx of technological advances in recent years the term has been redefined to mean some forms of media that were once known as “new”. New media now refers to all the media forms of the technological revolution. This provides a new way for composers to be able to express their ideas through a more extensive selection of media genres, to a much wider audience as opposed to the older way of just simply writing something down and hoping maybe a few people would see it. As opposed to in the old days when people wrote a letter and would mail it to another person, now someone can write a blog, tweet, or post something to Facebook, allowing it to not only be seen by its intended viewer(s), but also by anyone in the world who chooses to access it on the web.
The issue that now appears to be happening is that old media outlets such as newspapers and magazines seem to be dying out because people are no longer reading them to get their information. Instead people now turn to their new media counterparts such as online news sources and television because they are able to get the information faster than in old media. We have to face as a society that the general public is pretty lazy and has very short attention spans. Rather than read a 2000 word in depth article discussing the pros and cons of the Iraq War in a newspaper, they would much rather watch 30 second video clip on FOX news that barley gives them any information other than the main points. To try to counteract this digital evolution of news by moving towards a more online based news source. It has even led to several major papers throughout the US move entirely online and ceasing all printing of actual newspapers.
In the Beltway-Blog, Poniewozik explains that “It’s too simple to say that new media are killing off old media.” I agree with that statement because it is a much more detailed process than just new overtaking the old. All media forms feed off each other and although it is continually reinvented through different genres over time, it has always remained the same product, particularly in the field of news media. You can look back at an original colonial newspaper and put it side-by-side with a current online news blog and essentially they both are they same thing because, although the format may have changed they still serve the same purpose of informing the public of news with professional research and reporting.
Today I will be speaking on the debated topic of old versus new media. Which is superior? Which is more trust worthy? Which will prevail? Both old and new media are very relevant in our lives today and I believe that the new media is going to take over the old. The types of mediums that we use to communicate with each other and get information have been changing rapidly over the past few years. Often people just think of media as the computer and the television. But we also have to look at the ever-changing world of the written word. When newspapers began putting their information onto their website, we just thought that was a good idea and never thought that the online would replace the actual newspaper. And so far it has not done so, but it is on its way there. I agree with what Amanda said about people being more inclined to type a few worlds into a search engine rather than reading an entire newspaper. Our society has become very interested in instant satisfaction, and the new media is more than willing to provide the masses with this service. The press has realized that this change is becoming necessary to their publications survival and have begun to transition to the new media. Television shows, even the ones with less content, have become so internet friendly that they even reference their online sites during the shows. They realize that people are spending much more time glued to their computer screens than sitting down in front of the television.
ReplyDeleteThe internet however is beginning to provide an outlet for unverified and untested information that an be both beneficial and detrimental to society. In the Beltway-Blog, Poniewozik states that when news happens, the “old media broke news while the blogs dispensed opinion.” This should make people believe the news, but instead we have discovered that people are more willing to follow the new media, even if the information is not 100% correct. I believe that this is due to our society’s new obsession with drama and the outrageous. The introduction of reality tv such as The Jersey Shore, Jersylicious and The Real Housewives, has trained the public to thirst for the scripted reality and drama in their media. Now the rest of the mediums have seemed to follow this popularity by letting everyone have an opinion. My making blogs where people can be their own expert and comment threads under any video posted the power has been nearly taken from the press and put into the hands of the people, whether they are educated on the matter or not. Poniewozik touches on this by saying the old media, under pressure to work fast, sharpen their voices and cut costs, are increasingly making news blog-style, through argument and controversy”. The old mediums are feeling the pressure from the popularity of blogs and online mediums so now they are adapting themselves to fit into the molds. I do not believe that this will be a rapid take over, but the new media is here to stay.
The old versus the new, an age-old battle fought over the years of history only to be settled by the test of time. However, I believe that today we can settle this war over which is better, the new media or the old. I am here to speak on behalf of the new media, and how it surpasses the old.
ReplyDeleteIn The Beltway Blog Battle, Poniewozik mentions the public’s loss of trust in the old media, “the old rules mainly protect consultant-cosseted public officials.” The public has lost trust in the old media, with many benefactors skewing the way that news is portrayed and brought to the audience, who are we to trust? Who can we trust but each other? This is the premise of new media, the premise that we control the news, we control the content. New media surpasses old with the simple fact that a large company isn’t overseeing the information provided by new media. A blogger blogs his opinion, his take on certain issues, it’s a personalized and more relatable position. In the old media, reporters are required to gather both sides of a story, the good and the bad, the left and the right. While this is all great, what does it mean to the lowly middle-class worker? How does it effect them personally? A reporter can’t answer simple questions like this, for it may be too small of a target audience for the paper. People need information that relates to them, information that they can take and personally apply to their careers and lives. With new media, there are thousands of blogs and sources of information that are targeted around the news you want to read about. Old media greatly fails in this outlet. While a local newspaper may lock your interests with some stories, the other 30 pages may be thrown in the recycling bin. Not only would you be reading less than a third of the paper, but you’re wasting money. With new media, everything is free. People that post on blogs, on news stories, do it because they have a passion for news. Reporters and news editors are constantly strained to provide the right type of news for the people who pay them. That isn’t truthful news, and that is not news that we can trust.
While many people argue that new media is supported by old media, I beg to differ. Old media is not the greatest “straight news” source we once thought it to be. Once new media began to eat away at the old media’s throne, the old media has begun to flail in the water to try and stay afloat. Poniewozik again says, “the old media, under pressure to work fast and cut costs, are increasingly making news blog-style, through argument and controversy.” Old media is giving in to new media, and at this point it almost seems shameful for news stations to dramatize their stories such as, “Fox news calling Michelle Obama Barak’s ‘baby mama.”
At this point we can see that old media has lost, and new media has come and here to stay. The sources of old media have to change their forms of reporting their news because the public has lost trust in it, and now must rely on new media to gain their viewers back. We all have seen it, when we change the channel to CNN or turn a page in a newspaper, there’s two little blips they always care to mention, “Follow us on twitter and Facebook.” The old media is changing and adapting to the new. New media has won.
“Meet the Press”
ReplyDeleteI am speaking on behalf of the public for the cases of both new and old media. Separate, both new media and old media have their strengths and weaknesses. While old media consists of educated experts using carefully researched information, new media is the child of that media; it is fresh and new and allows the public to be more active in the news around them, but it is still a part of the media family.
Old media and new media no longer exist without one another. Though some may believe that new media is taking over the old, the truth is that they are now working together to fit the needs of all people. New media is simply a remediation of the old. There are some different components to it, but the idea of the old media will always be there.
Whether old or new, media will always have the same purpose: delivering information to the population. The only difference is how it is delivered. In the old media, journalists and other experts would obtain information through conferences, research, and interviews. They would then take all of that information and write an article or script so that they could share this information. With the new media, news can be spread faster via internet and other new technologies. With the old media, the public would have to wait for a newspaper to be printed, or wait to hear the news on the radio or television. As technology increased the means of delivering information to the public has just become more convenient. Information can spread faster with the use of the internet, and reach more people in a shorter amount of time.
Though both new media and old media are important because they share news and information to the public, both also have their faults. Old media is factual and carefully researched, however it is a slower process which makes the public have to wait for the news which poses as an inconvenience for many people. As for new media, it is fast and easily distributed to many people at any given time. People no longer have to wait for their news, however not all new media is guaranteed factual. The public must be careful when accessing news on the internet because not all forms of new media are true or worthy of credit.
In his article “The Beltway-Blog Battle” Poniewozik states that “journalists are feeling besieged” by this new media. He claims that they feel challenged by the “bloggers and YouTubers” who are “a diffuse army of the uncredentialed”. There is a point the true journalists are losing their jobs, but the truth is that their art will never be lost, itll just be altered to catch up with the fast pace of technology.
There is no longer an “old media” or “new media”, there is simply “meeting the press”. The two ideas are now one that have combined to fit the needs of everyone. Journalists are still reporting news, and the public is still out there to add their input and comments. There shouldn’t be such hard feelings against either form of media. Both are beneficial in their own way, and both work perfectly together.
“This morning, Alexandra Aron will be speaking on behalf of what we now call ‘old media’ in comparison to the new vehicles of news and current events”
ReplyDelete“Hello everyone, in the next few minutes I will describe and explain why old media, though it seems its becoming eclipsed by new media, is still our number 1 source for the facts and most trusted information.”
“We live in a two-faced world. By that I do not mean to reference the mean girls you met in high school, but the fact that nearly half of our lives exist online and in cyberspace. From social media to streaming videos, there is practically nothing that goes on in our lives that we can’t find or read about online. Of course this includes news and current events. Newspapers barely even get a nod when compared with the heated space of an Internet blog or YouTube opinion video. These new medias allow for you and me to voice our opinions, whatever they may be, for the world to see. They are also highly interactive, meaning that whatever I may post is not just for myself; it is almost a sort of invitation to dialogue and discussion. We love when people “comment” on our status and videos because it gives us a reassuring sense that we are not alone in believing what we have said or done is right.”
“There is no doubt that this new medium is fascinating as well as instantaneously communicable. However, is this the kind of medium in which we should present news? I do not think so. Traditional mediums, such as newspapers, though they seem outdated’ now, are exactly what they are: traditional. I understand this seems like a viewpoint of someone’s 87-year-old grandmother who does not want to adapt and would rather just continue doing the same things from the good ol’ days, but it is the same viewpoint that will ensure the survival of the caliber of news that we present. If traditional mediums weren’t good at what they do, they wouldn’t be around still. As Kayla Becker said, “we need the credentials of old media to bring intelligent discourse and analysis.” It is the strict guidelines and rules with which reporters write the news that makes it credible. I learned in an Intro to Public Relations course in college that a reporter, when collecting information for a story, has numerous specific rules in accordance with the collection of information as well as writing. These include citing sources, writing within the parameters of a model, and many others. Though these seem like a lot of work, they are what make old media most credible. New media outlets rarely have any guidelines, making me wonder who is reporting the news and where they got their information. Anyone can blog and report that there is a conflict in Egypt, for example, but if they intend on citing sources, (which many of them don’t), they turn to traditional mediums. As Samantha Drub stated ‘new media needs old media to even exist for the most part.’ This is the perfect example of how even though new mediums are exciting and possibly more interesting, they are more often than not getting their original information form traditional medium, the true and trusted source of newsworthy information.”
I'm here to report that neither new media or old media can be properly compared to one another. Doing so would bring into question under what criteria we are grading media. By audience? Dispersion? Appeal? Malleability? Life-span? Or possibly the ease and efficiency by which it remediates. If so, then both are going to exceed and fall short in different areas, and therefore, it is impossible for one to be held as more valuable than the other. Old and new media, for one reason, can not be compared because they are the same thing: media. "A medium in our culture can never operate in isolation" (Bolter & Grusin, pg. 65). Old and new media require each other in order to be considered affective. The truth is, both old and new media are completely active within society, even if we aren't completely aware of it. Old media isn't dead or inefficient. If it was, then political parties wouldn't continue to hand out pamphlets, people wouldn't clip coupons, and photographs would be taken of Presidents instead of portraits. New media only exists because it has built upon old media. It doesn't appeal to our eyes anymore than old media does. It isn't somehow less literate. Faigley tells us, "Every known culture, past and present, has a language of images." If anything, it is the combination of old and new media together that have proven to be most important to our society.
ReplyDeleteSo I present to you the truth that it is both old and new media, through hypermediacy, that have prevailed in our culture. Hypermediacy has allowed both mediums to exists in correlation with one another. In doing so, media can build upon itself. It may seem as though new media is most valued, but "Literacy has always been a material, multimedia construct" and "we only now are becoming aware of this multidimensionality and materiality because computer technologies have made it possible for many people to produce and publish multimedia presentations" (Selzer & Crowley).
Who here can truly define what is old and what is new anyway? I'd venture to say that the definition is based on perspective. Honestly, even the "newest" of media doesn't take long to become "old". Which is why the two have defined by their function within hypermediacy. "the boundary between new and old media has become porous"(Poniewozik). Old media presents a format, idea and material presence while new media seeks to create transparency. While old media sets a standard, new media absorbs that standard and attempts to exceed it.
In regards to dispersion, new media may perform most outstandingly than old media, but I agree completely with what Kayla said. In the end, the media's worth cannot be proven by its means of presenting itself, but more so by how people involve themselves with it. She explains how this was evident in Obama's campaign. It's true that the best media is the one that engages its audience. In old media, this may present itself through graffitti or advertsing billboards. In new media, it may be through blogs or news syndications. This is the reality of old and new media: neither are relevant without us. "We see ourselves today in and through our available media" (Bolter & Grusin, 231). Because our identity is so invested in media, and because the human being is held at a value high above any concept, the assessment of old and new media is determined by how much of our self is remediated through it. In regards to this, both are ultimately valuable and relevant.
In addition to making everyone a composer, technology, mainly the Internet, has made everyone capable of being a member of the press and to reveal information that was supposed to be secret later. A person, a donor to the Obama campaign, came into a closed meeting, but bloged about it later on the Huffington Post. This story blew up on the Huffington Post, being a popular news/blog site. "Meet the Press" highlights the differences between old and new mediums through which we receive our information. Blogs are often the response to the article, and news sites have formatted the web pages to allow their stories to further develop. The ability to respond to an event helps gage the interest and opinions on the subject. This can give a news source more demographic information to present to their advertisers, as well as adjusting the stories they present and how they present them to their public (as conservative, liberal, or neither). After reading "Meet the Press", I'd assert that it's a new dynamic to the press, not a takeover. I agree with Amanda Saxton when she says that old and new medias are just as effective as the other. This is an adjustment period for expanding the mediums through which we receive information. In this new age, the selling factor is convenience. We will still want the newspaper in print because it will happen to be more convenient for those without acces to a laptop or other device at that instant.
ReplyDeleteDoes it trivialize the work of an accredited journalist?
Or is it a call for them to rise to the challenge?
I used to watch this video blog, or "vlog", on YouTube. I, being too vool for ordinary news, watched it because the host took the time to find all of these weird news stories and used curse words whilst he formed his opinions about them. Frankly, the news bums me out, and I like to have anecdotes to tell so this is the method I prefer. He always had the daily top video rating and was paid to make this 5 minute show daily. Does this make him a member of the press? If so, is it because he is paid or because he talks about the news?
The common outlook on this change is that the old and new media are complimentary. Yancey says that by using Blackboard for our courses, we are assuming computer literacy for student to be able to get their course descriptions, assignments, etc. ("Composition in a New Key" 307). While researching my newsletter, I came across a quote from a work by Selfe and Hawisher where they said that literacy is basically the ability for a person in society to function and communicate with others. Without the ability to access blogs, video streaming, and other online sources, one could not be considered "literate" in society because information is constantly changing. You cannot keep up with the changes without the Internet. A large news source is Facebook. I "liked" The Rachel Maddow Show and I get updates all throughout the day because of this. If not actual news, its how we remain clued in with how our family and friends are doing.
I am speaking on behalf of the public in favor of new media. As a person who spends most of their leisurely time on the internet on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube (enough time to consider going to Youtube conventions and channel meet-ups in fact.) I believe I represent the audience that new media reaches the most fairly well. At the moment what Poniewozik says about old and new media still being melded together is true. “Old and new media are still symbiotic, but it's getting hard to tell who's the rhino and who's the tickbird (Poniewozik).” New media occasionally relys on old media for the primary sources of information but as time goes on this will become the case less and less.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, Youtube has become the playing ground of everything from your average vlogger, the aspiring filmmaker. But most people don’t know is that Youtube in itself can become a career. Users have the ability to become “Partners” and earn a salary for the videos they make. The more videos they make and the more popular they become the more money they make and I have watched many Partners earn more than enough to live wealthy, stable lives. So there you have an example of a new media not only providing a free venue for creators of media but creating new jobs as well.
It’s no secret that to have a series of social networking websites has become near standard for any business. These sites, the hubs of new media not only gives a business a since of keeping up the times but they make the new media user feel, their own way, safe and familiar because they know how to communicate and operate on these sites. Old media does not offer a common ground or meeting place for communication like new media does.
“And the old media, under pressure to work fast, sharpen their voices and cut costs, are increasingly making news blog-style, through argument and controversy (Poniewozik). The race for old media to cut costs and get the news out faster is a losing one, something that some magazines and newspapers have already come to realize and are now folding under. Many print mediums are now converting to purely online format and not only does it bring in more readers but it’s the fastest way to turn out articles and information. Businesses that would have fallen under otherwise find new life online.
Like my fellow member of the public, Eric Fisher says, new media offers the public the become reporters of the news themselves using new technologies and creating websites and spreading information faster than a traditional journalist could ever hope to. New media provides a chance for audiences and reporters to become one and the same in a way that has never been possible before. I believe the problem a lot of traditional journalists have with new media is not just the fact that it’s hard to tell if news delivered by a new media source is creditable or not but that it takes away the illusion that you have to be a professional in order to share news at all.
New Media has definitely impacted the world over the last few decades. For many and many years there has been a well cropped and cultivated form of news that would reach the public and sparked interest. In order to find out what was going on people either had to read the news paper or watch it on television news coverage. The snag on these forms of media coverage is that someone was deciding what was going to be said and how an event was going to be portrayed to the world. Although today there are still people who decide what is going to be news, there is much more to be said about what the public is actually learning and talking about. Like the Beltway articles said, there are people on Blog cites like this one or on youtube spreading their opinions and getting information out to the public in a hot minute. Because of all the new forms of media it is nearly impossible to really filter news the way it used to be. Spreading News is not just about people declaring their opinion on social networking cites or creating youtube videos; it is also about people having the ability to record big time news with their phones. If you have seen Bruce Almighty you have an idea on what I am talking about. One of the struggles Bruce goes through is being in the right place at the right time so he could get credit for being the first news anchor on the scene. Even though this is still the case in a way, now it does not seem to be that big of a deal anymore because there is always someone who caught it on their new iphone. Now the question is… is this new phenomenon a good thing or a bad thing? The fact that the old forms of media are dwindling is not a good thing for sure, especially with the way the economy is right now. Jobs are being lost and that’s never a good thing. However, if we are strictly speaking about media coverage, then this phenomenon is a spectacular thing. It is true too much information is not necessarily a good thing because it can cause more confusion, but being able to obtain untainted information is priceless. The public wants and can handle the truth so if it makes it a little harder for politicians to hide their facades then so be it. Not to mention the fact that as these new forms of media gain more credibility maybe there will be a way to create jobs through them one day, which might help or hinder this source of truth.
ReplyDeleteI moved into a new home a couple years ago. Growing up with a single mom often meant that my opinion weighed in heavily upon decisions that are usually made soley by a mother and father. I helped extensively in the selection of our new apartment. Once we moved in, we decided to redecorate and revamp our furniture. This is when our opinions clashed. I am a fan of contemporary design and my traditional south carolinian mother prefers to model old victorian fashions. Rather than arguing and one of us "winning" the decorative war, we found a way to create synergy between our two tastes. The combination of our tastes is very similar to the bonding of media that has occurred as technology has advanced.
ReplyDeleteFrom the point of view of the press, new media and old media is very much relevant to remediation. Poniewozik said that the transition from old media to new media is not simple occurrence. Old media is not replacing new media; the press is finding a way for them to function together. From the point of view of the public, the best parts of old media and new media are being taken and molded into innovative media. Old technology like print and new technology such as digital images are being put together to create inventive media such as blogs. Blogs are a remediation of newspapers, journals, and magazines all in one. As you know, these print versions of media are not obsolete but we still enjoy the luxury of the new media, blogs. As Poniewozik noted, old media functions to release breaking news and blogs provide a forum for opinion and response. If my mother had won the decor debate, she would have defined the "news" of our house, but since we made an agreement based on both of our styles, similar to what a blog is, there was room for compromise and opinion. Another difference between new media and old media that helps preserve old media is that often new media provides frivolous information, but old media still delivers the hard facts that will never grow out of date. New media, which still provides some of the same news as old media condones personal opinion of the composer and allows feedback from the reader. The role of the composer in new media is not as permanently defined as it is in older media. New media is a cyclical form of communication. The press and the public often play both roles, both being able to share news and remark on news being told. So despite the prevalent use of new media, old media is here to stay.
I need you all to sit down and listen for just one moment. And in this moment, whether long or short, however long it takes me to present my argument for the power of the press, you will come to understand how you, the public, are informed upon this “new media” and “old media” and why such new media’s are destroying the old media’s purpose, not expounding upon it. I will draw upon several sources in my argument that have been noted as scholars in the field of media writing, and some of which you may argue against, however one specifically, James Poniewozik, understands the plight of these new media practitioners and it is his work that I will be citing today. Thank you for your time and understanding in this heated conversation, as you can see, Editing Writing and Media is the foundation of our journalistic future of which both new and old media can be built upon.
ReplyDeleteNew media, defined as digital sources, and old media defined as visual or hard print sources in different areas have a specific and sometimes porous boundary. The rift between old and new media, in my researched opinion, is caused by the expansion of new media beyond its original purpose (Poniewozik). “TO say that the new media are killing off of the old media” is too simple”; Old media originally was the source for news, while new media was the source for public opinion. New media infringes upon the presses authority. For example, according to Poniewozik, two of the largest presidential scandals in the last two decades have been reported upon from the Huffington Post (online) writer Mayhill Fowler. Fowler, with all of the ethical issues, infringed upon the fundamental journalistic integrity that is a part of the old media by failing to identify herself as a person of media. Mainstream, new media has no problem with the improprieties that are accompanied by a lack of “process and credentials”. Sources must be able to trust the press and know that their points of view will be listened to and reported as truth.
The press, while not regarded as the “sole arbiter of the truth” is the main source of straight news, is an enormous giant in the news and media world. Despite our value, journalists are losing the fight against the new. Jobs are being “slashed” and the siege against their positions is heavily weighing on the press’ readiness to accommodate the public’s need for sensationalist media. However, one thing to consider when comparing between the credited and the unaccredited; is how can one maintain their mass market?