The term “new media” describes recent and innovative forms of communication that are presently available. “New media” can be generally thought of in today’s standards as using a computer or as referred to by Martin Lister in New Media: A Critical Introduction as ‘digital new media’ (Lister 14). From a modernist viewpoint, new in media forms has shifted from the physical analogue to the changeable digital forms. In each scenario, what defines old and new media forms is up for interpretation.
One main question is how to determine a separation of what are deemed old and new media forms? The expansion and creation of new mediums stems from their original connectedness. To try and give an exact time of when the old became old and the new became new would be setting an obscure date to an unknown point in time. Their history and reliance on one another make media forms an equal contributing factor to what is considered new; therefore, what is to say old media forms are not a part of the new. For instance, the use of the internet (digital new media) relies on the use of a phone line (old analogue) in order to run. As each relies on one another to work properly, one could assume that new media may simply be a continuation and improvement of an old form. If the internet would not be possible without a phone line, why would a phone be considered old media? Simply put, new media forms could be the new ways we configure the old forms.
Being described as new also gives the assumption that the most recent is ultimately better than the old. This still raises questions of whether or not new media forms are an actual improvement to communication. Advancements in digital media are created to make tasks more efficient and easier by packaging multiple communication forms into an “all in one” form. Products like smartphones, ipods, and the internet itself are used to do multiple things by means of one medium. Each newer form focuses on amplifying the speed and amount of information available to make things easier. But does the efficiency and quality of information get lost in translation because there is too much going on at once? Who is to say what is credible if new media constantly changes and allows anyone to contribute to its content?
“New media” now combines producers and consumers into one identity known by Lister as the ‘prosumer’ (Lister 33). What has become different and a defining staple of what “new media” is could be its user-friendly status and how each user can contribute to the information it produces. In order to truly have “new media” would require a completely new approach, idea, and language. When the concepts of capturing images in a photograph or using a telephone to contact others came about, other ideas were then thought of to expand on the idea of capturing an image. With this said, are the days of actual new media gone until the next concept of mass communication is thought of?
links:
2 responses so far ↓
Adrienne // September 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm
You mention that new media “…would require a completely new approach, idea, and language.” What might be one critique of this belief?
Alex Gerage // September 9, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I like the different approach you took to addressing the connectedness of old and new media. Your examples, which I believe were also brought up in class, certainly show that our new media cannot thrive without the old, established mediums. With this in mind, I can’t imagine a new media completely independent from the old. Everything seems to be a continuing or improvement from something already created, no matter how innovative it may appear to be. It’s a unique way of looking at the argument.